Ohio Adult Parole Authority, et al. v. Eugene Woodard (523 U.S. 272)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 25, 1998 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 523 U.S. 272 · 118 S. Ct. 1244
- Decided
- March 25, 1998
- Term
- October Term 1997
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and III, and an opinion with respect to Part II in which Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join. This ease requires us to resolve two inquiries as to constitutional limitations on state clemency proceedings. The first is whether an inmate has a protected life or liberty interest in clemency proceedings, under either Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S. 458 (1981), or Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387 (1985). The second is whether giving inmates the option of voluntarily participating in an interview as part of the clemency process violates an inmate’s Fifth Amendment rights. We reaffirm our holding in Dumschat, supra, that “pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally been the business of courts; as such, they are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review.” Id., at 464 (footnote omitted). The Due Process Clause is not violated where, as here, the procedures in question do no more than confirm that the clemency and pardon powers are committed, as is our tradition, to the authority of the executive. We further hold that a voluntary inmate interview does not violate the Fifth Amendment. I The Ohio Constitution gives the Governor the power to grant clemency upon such conditions as he thinks proper. Ohio…
Excerpt of a 25,377-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.