finds statement of reasons constitutionally required
How later courts described this case
- finds statement of reasons constitutionally required
- due process applies to the extent that reasons must be given
- Due Process does apply to parole eligibility process
- Leventhal, J„ concurring in the result
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TAMM, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the conclusions that Judge Fahy reaches in his opinion and in most of his reasoning.
I believe that the due process clause applies to prisoners whose applications for parole have been denied. A prisoner’s interest in his application for conditional liberty is substantial, and denial of that opportunity must be accompanied by minimal standards of due process of law. Moreover, I agree with Judge Fahy that this result is compatible with and a natural extension of Chief Justice Burger’s approach in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).
However, I recognize a distinction between the discretion afforded the government in denying an application of conditional liberty and in revoking that liberty once granted. Consequently, I do not read our holding as requiring that parole denial procedures incorporate all the elements of due process made applicable to parole revocation proceedings in Morrissey . Finally, in light of the broad discretion given the Board in reviewing parole applications, I do not believe that our holding today will place the courts in the business of reviewing each individual application for release.
With these reservations, I join the court’s opinion.