Jaog_V._Van_Curen

Jaog V. Van Curen Introduction The Supreme Court case Jago v. 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 jago, van, curen, parole, case, van, rescission, decision, court, opinion, curen’s, amendment, process, justice, hearing, fourteenth, correctional, without, system, supreme, ruled, formal, due, clause, blackmun, believe, affect, 1981, violation, stevens, rescind, rehnquist, prisoner’s, prisoners, prisoner, lawful, law