Board of Pardons v. Allen

1987-06-09

Headline: Montana parole rule upheld as creating a protected liberty interest, allowing prisoners eligible for parole to get procedural protections when parole is denied and forcing parole boards to follow statutory criteria.

Holding: The Court held that Montana's parole statute creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole release, so eligible prisoners are entitled to procedural due process protections when the Board denies parole.

Real World Impact:

Recognizes eligible Montana inmates’ right to due process before parole denial.
Requires parole boards to follow statutory criteria and explain denials.
Remands to determine what process is due, so procedures may change.

Topics: parole process, due process, prisoner rights, state parole boards

Summary

Background

Two Montana inmates, George Allen and Dale Jacobsen, sued the State Board of Pardons after their parole applications were denied. They brought a class action under federal civil-rights law, alleging the Board failed to apply statutory criteria and did not adequately explain denials. The District Court denied relief, the Ninth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals.

Reasoning

The main question was whether Montana’s parole law creates a protected expectation of release that requires procedural protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the Court’s prior decision in Greenholtz, the majority compared Montana’s statute to Nebraska’s and found similar mandatory language and substantive predicates. The Court noted the statute’s use of “shall,” the listed factors in regulations, the statutory direction about community and prisoner interests, and a provision for judicial review. On that basis the Court concluded the statute creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole release.

Real world impact

As a result, prisoners eligible for parole in Montana have an interest that triggers due process when parole is denied. The ruling requires courts and parole boards to consider the statute’s criteria and the need for procedural protections, but it does not prescribe the exact procedures. The case was sent back for the lower court to decide what process is due, and the damages claim kept the case alive even though the two respondents were later released on parole.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O'Connor, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, dissented. She argued the statute’s standards are too broad and leave the Board with sweeping discretion, so no entitlement to parole was created and the majority misreads prior cases.