Van Curen(1981) examines whether the rescission of parole without a formal hearing violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision of the case, the majority ruled that it is not a violation to rescind parole. Based on the majorities reasoning for their opinion I believe that the rescission of Van Curen's parole was lawful.
Context of the Case.
I was not able to locate very many outside media sources related to the case other than government documents such as those available on Lexis-Nexis.
Case Summary.
The opinion by was delivered by Chief Justice Burger, and joined by Justices White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O" Connor. The court ruled that the rescission of Van Curen's parole without a formal hearing did not violate the his right to due process of law the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further ruled that "neither Ohio law relating to parole, nor the expectation resulting from the notification given to the prisoner that a parole release had been ordered in his case being sufficient to create a liberty interest within the meaning of the amendment" (Rehnquist 1981). .
Justice Blackmun concurred with the opinion. He felt that the rescission of Van Curen's parole was not in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Blackmun felt that the rescission of parole was lawful because the parole boards ruling was "based on the prisoner's untruths" (Blackmun 1981). .
The dissent was delivered by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall. The dissenting opinion was that the parole authorities rescission of Van Curen's parole did create "an interest protected by the dues process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Stevens 1981).
Case Analysis.
I believe that the decision in this case was consistent with the Federal court's "hand's on" approach to the correctional system. The Supreme Court took an active role in the administration of a state correctional facility by supporting their decision to rescind Van Curen's parole.