## Facts

- Nebraska inmates eligible for discretionary parole brought a federal class action alleging that the State’s parole-release procedures violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Nebraska law made inmates eligible for parole after serving the minimum term less good-time credits.
- The Nebraska Board of Parole used a two-stage process:
  - An annual initial review with an inmate interview and consideration of supporting statements; if parole was deferred, the Board stated why.
  - A final hearing for likely candidates at which the inmate could present evidence, call witnesses, and have counsel; if parole was denied, the Board issued written reasons.
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,114(1) provided that the Board “shall” order release unless it concluded that release should be deferred for at least one of four specified reasons.
- The district court and the Eighth Circuit held the procedures constitutionally insufficient and required more formal hearings and additional written findings.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause applies to state parole-release determinations and, if so, whether Nebraska law created a protected liberty interest in parole release.
2. Whether Nebraska’s existing parole procedures satisfied due process, or whether more formal, trial-like procedures were constitutionally required.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed (5–4).
- A state’s creation of a parole system, standing alone, does not create a federal liberty interest; it creates only a hope of release.
- Nebraska’s statute, using mandatory “shall release” language tied to specific reasons for deferral, created a limited, state-defined liberty interest in parole expectancy.
- Due process in parole-release decisions requires only minimal safeguards; it does not require a full adversarial hearing or a written statement of all evidence in every denial.
- Nebraska’s procedures—opportunity to be heard through interviews and submissions, and reasons for deferral/denial as provided—were constitutionally adequate.

## Legal Principles

- There is no constitutional or inherent right to early or conditional release before expiration of a valid sentence.
- A protected liberty interest may arise from state law when mandatory language is coupled with substantive predicates that constrain official discretion.
- Parole release decisions differ from parole revocation; release determinations involve predictive and subjective judgments rather than primarily retrospective factfinding.
- When a state-created parole expectancy exists, due process is flexible and may be satisfied by informal, nonadversary procedures that reduce arbitrariness without imposing trial-type requirements.

## Conclusion

Nebraska’s parole statute created a limited liberty interest because it mandated release absent specified reasons for deferral, but the Constitution required only minimal procedural protections for parole-release decisions, and Nebraska’s existing process met that standard.


Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979)