Morrissey v. Brewer

Supreme Court of United States
408 U.S. 471 (1972)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a state provide a parolee with a two-stage hearing process before revoking parole, because a parolee's conditional liberty is a constitutionally protected interest.

Facts:

In 1967, Morrissey was convicted of check fraud in Iowa and was paroled in June 1968.
Seven months later, Morrissey was arrested at the direction of his parole officer for alleged parole violations, including buying a car and obtaining credit under an assumed name.
One week after his arrest, the Iowa Board of Parole revoked Morrissey's parole based solely on his parole officer's written report, and he was returned to the penitentiary.
In a separate case, Booher was convicted of forgery in 1966 and was paroled in November 1968.
In August 1969, Booher was arrested for alleged parole violations, including violating territorial restrictions and obtaining a driver's license under an assumed name.
A month later, the Iowa Board of Parole revoked Booher's parole based on his parole officer's written report, and he was returned to the penitentiary.
Neither Morrissey nor Booher received any form of hearing before their paroles were revoked.

Procedural Posture:

Petitioners Morrissey and Booher filed separate habeas corpus petitions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging their due process rights were violated.
The District Court denied their petitions, holding that no hearing was required for parole revocation.
The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where their cases were consolidated.
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's decision in a 4-3 vote.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a state afford an individual an opportunity to be heard prior to revoking his parole?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

Yes, the Due Process Clause requires that a state afford a parolee an opportunity to be heard before revoking parole. The liberty of a parolee, although conditional, is a significant interest within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its termination inflicts a 'grievous loss.' The Court rejected the old distinction between 'rights' and 'privileges,' finding that procedural protections are required whenever an individual faces a significant deprivation. The revocation process must include two hearings: 1) a preliminary hearing near the place of the alleged violation to determine probable cause, conducted by an uninvolved officer, and 2) a more formal revocation hearing before the parole authority. The final hearing must provide minimum due process protections, including written notice, disclosure of evidence, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront adverse witnesses (unless there is good cause not to), a neutral hearing body, and a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons for revocation.

Dissenting - Justice Douglas

Yes, due process requires a hearing, but the protections outlined by the majority do not go far enough. The status a parolee enjoys is a right as important as those reviewed in Goldberg v. Kelly, and arbitrary revocation impairs rehabilitation. Procedural due process should require that a parolee is given notice and a hearing before being arrested and returned to prison, unless a new offense has been committed. The hearing must be before a neutral officer, not the parole officer making the charge, and the parolee should be entitled to counsel. A parolee should remain free until the results of the hearing are known and the parole board acts on them.

Concurring - Justice Brennan

Yes, the Due Process Clause requires both a preliminary and a final hearing before parole can be revoked. I write separately to emphasize that, based on precedent like Goldberg v. Kelly, a parolee must at the very least be allowed to retain an attorney for these hearings. Counsel is essential to delineate issues, present facts in an orderly manner, and safeguard the parolee's interests. The only question that should remain open is whether the state must appoint counsel for a parolee who is indigent.

Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally altered prisoners' rights by extending the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause to parole revocation proceedings. By rejecting the long-standing 'right-privilege' distinction in this context, the Court recognized a parolee's conditional liberty as a constitutionally protected interest. It established a new, two-part procedural framework that balances the state's administrative interests with the individual's right to fairness. This case set a significant precedent for requiring due process in other administrative and correctional settings, such as prison disciplinary hearings, influencing this area of law for decades to come.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature