Greenholtz V. Inmates of The Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex - Opinion of The Court

Opinion of The Court

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against the deprivation of liberty interests at the hands of the state. In order to trigger due process protection, the liberty interest in question must be more than merely abstract or theoretical; it must be something to which a person has a "legitimate claim of entitlement". No prisoner has a liberty interest in being released before his sentence expires, because the trial and appeals processes have ensured that the state has lawfully deprived the person of his interest in being free from confinement. A state may create a parole system for its prisoners, but it is not required to do so. Parole exists as an adjunct to the penological goals of rehabilitation and deterrence. Like the prison system itself, the parole regime is created and managed by the executive branch, which has no obligation to make error-free determinations in executing the laws.

In Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), the Court held that due process imposed certain standards on the decision to revoke parole. The Nebraska inmates in this case argued on the basis of Morrisey that due process likewise required certain standards to govern the decision to grant parole. The Court disagreed, because it saw a material difference between the decision to take away freedom already granted and the decision to free someone before their legitimate expectation of release ripens. "The parole release decision is more subtle and depends on an amalgam of elements, some of which are factual but many of which are purely subjective appraisals by the Board members based on their experience with the difficult and sensitive task of evaluating the advisability of parole release". Because the decision to grant parole depends on such subjective factors, and ultimately derives from the mere hope that the Board will grant parole, the Court held that there was no per se liberty interest in being granted parole.

However, the particular statute creating Nebraska's parole system used mandatory language, and the prisoners argued that this mandatory language gave rise to a protected liberty interest in parole:

Whenever the Board of Parole considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his release unless it is of the opinion that his release should be deferred because:

1. There is a substantial risk that he will not conform to the conditions of parole;
2. His release would depreciate the seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for the law;
3. His release would have a substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline; or
4. His continued correctional treatment, medical care, or vocational or other training in the facility would substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.

Although this statute did use the word "shall", the Court did not interpret it to mean that a decision that takes into account these criteria should for that reason alone embody the full protections of an adversarial hearing. The Court ruled that the prisoner's opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf minimized the risk of error and thus satisfied due process because the Board had before it the prisoner's entire file. Due process did not require the Board to articulate the specific evidence on which it had relied, because this would tend to make the hearings more adversarial in nature. The fact that the Board communicated the reasons for its denial, couching its explanation in terms of guidance for the prisoner's future growth, was sufficient. "The Nebraska procedure affords an opportunity to be heard, and when parole is denied it informs the inmate in what respects he falls short of qualifying for parole; this affords the process that is due under these circumstances. The Constitution does not require more."