Swarthout v. Cooke

Background

Two men serving indeterminate seven-years-to-life sentences in California challenged denials of parole. One man, convicted of attempted first-degree murder in 1991, had his parole denied in 2002 based on the cruel nature of the offense, limited rehab participation, lack of skills, and prison misconduct. The other man, convicted of first-degree murder in 1978, was found suitable by the parole board but the Governor reversed that finding citing the seriousness of the crime, long criminal history, substance abuse, and weak release plans. State courts denied relief; federal courts reached different results, and the Ninth Circuit sided with the prisoners.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether federal habeas courts may correct state-court applications of California’s state-law “some evidence” test for parole. The Court explained federal habeas relief is limited to violations of the United States Constitution or federal law. It emphasized that the federal Due Process Clause requires only minimal procedures for parole decisions—an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons—and that both prisoners had received those protections. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach of treating California’s “some evidence” standard as a federal requirement and reversed the lower courts’ rulings.

Real world impact

The decision stops federal courts from overturning parole denials based solely on state-law review errors and leaves enforcement of California’s parole standards to state courts and officials. Federal courts remain able to review only whether the minimal federal due-process protections were provided.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg wrote separately to note that a different federal standard (from an earlier case) might apply if California law actually entitled prisoners to parole; she agreed with the Court’s outcome here.