Iowa Supreme Court opinion holding that although inmates have a liberty interest in parole, the state is not violating inmates' right to due process by delaying sex offense treatment that must completed to be meaningfully considered for parole. The opinion states that the Iowa Department of Corrections has acted reasonably in attempting to address the fact there are too many individuals convicted of sex offenses in the system to provide treatment on a timely basis.
Third Circuit opinion reversing district court and holding that Pennsylvania's practice of treating people convicted of sex offenses differently than other individuals for the purposes of placement in halfway houses due to community concerns did not violate Equal Protection Clause.
New York Appellate Division opinion holding that New York state legislature did not intend school grounds exclusion provisions of state sex offense law to apply to youthful offenders.
California Supreme Court Opinion holding that a voter-passed constitutional amendment expanding parole eligibility to individuals convicted of non-violent felonies included non-violent sex offenses or people otherwise required to register.
New York Court of Appeals opinion holding that New York's practice of imprisoning some individuals convicted of sex offenses past dates they would otherwise be released for want of legal housing was not unconstitutional.
Utah Supreme Court opinion affirming that Appellant's due process rights were not violated when the parole board required him to complete a sex offender treatment program, where he was convicted of a non-sexual offense requiring registration and made statements in a presentence report indicating that sexual conduct was connected with the offense of conviction.
California Court of Appeal decision finding that California state regulations excluding those convicted of non-violent sex offenses from parole eligibility contradicted plain text of a ballot initiatve, and thus was unlawful.
Michigan Court of Appeals reversing a decision denying parole to an person who was serving a sentence for sex offenses, on the grounds that the parole board did not abuse its discretion and that a treatment completion requirement did not violate state law.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, holding that SARA-related housing restrictions did not apply to individual who was serving a sentence for a non-sexual offense.
California Supreme Court invalidating blanket imposition of residential banishment laws to those convicted of sex offenses and and parole.