The United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that federal courts have no business reviewing decisions made by the Board of Parole Hearings or by the governor denying parole to inmates serving life terms.
In a blunt decision made without oral argument, the Court held on January 24, 2011 that the only right that inmates in California State Prisons have at parole hearings is an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. In reversing two Ninth Circuit cases that examined whether decisions made by the Board or governor were supported by “some evidence” of current dangerousness, the Supreme Court said that it was “no part of the Ninth Circuit’s business” to perform a review of state parole determinations. The Court described the decisions made by the Ninth Circuit in those cases as “questionable.”
The Court explained that “mere error of state law” is not a denial of due process. Whether the board or a state court decided cases involving parole correctly is beyond the scope of federal review.
The Supreme Court’s decisions means the dismissal of hundreds of pending habeas petitions in federal district courts and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal challenging board decisions and decisions by a governor reversing parole.
Challenges to parole board decisions and decisions by the governor reversing parole suitability findings may still be brought before California State Courts.
The case is Swarthout v. Cooke , 562 U.S._____(2011)
