Federal Court Grants Class Certification and Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Parole Revocation Practices

LITTLE ROCK – Today, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker granted a preliminary injunction and certified a class in a lawsuit challenging Arkansas’s unconstitutional parole revocation system.

The ruling means the case will proceed as a class action on behalf of impacted parolees across the state — and blocks the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board (PPTB) and the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) from continuing practices that deny people facing parole revocation their constitutional right to due process.

In two landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that people accused of violating parole are entitled to basic due process protections, including the right to counsel in certain circumstances, the opportunity to be heard, and the ability to present evidence and confront adverse witnesses.

But, as detailed in court filings and testimony, Arkansas has continued to return thousands of people to prison through fundamentally flawed proceedings.

The court heard evidence that eligible parolees were not properly screened for appointed counsel, were not informed of their right to request one, and were frequently denied meaningful opportunities to present evidence or call witnesses. People with disabilities were often also denied reasonable accommodations necessary to participate in hearings that determined whether they would lose their freedom.

Today, the court ordered significant changes to the state’s parole revocation system to bring it in line with what the constitution has long required. The state must now hold timely preliminary hearings to determine whether there is probable cause for alleged parole violations before a final revocation hearing occurs. Parolees must receive written notice of alleged violations and be given the opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses, and confront adverse witnesses before a neutral decisionmaker. The state must inform parolees of their right to request appointed counsel, screen all who request counsel for eligibility, appoint counsel where required under Supreme Court precedent, and provide written explanations when counsel is denied. If parole is revoked, officials must issue a written decision explaining the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revocation. The court also ordered the state to conduct inquiries into necessary disability accommodation when requested or when officials are on notice of a disability.

The plaintiffs are represented by the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU of Arkansas, and Latham & Watkins.

“We are pleased that the court has recognized how unconstitutional and unjust the ADC and PPTB’s parole revocation practices have been,” said Olivia Fritz, Attorney for MacArthur Justice Center’s National Parole Transformation Project. “Arkansans facing parole revocation have spent far too long without the opportunity to be adequately heard and have been vehemently denied basic civil rights throughout the revocation process.”

“Arkansas has been sending people back to prison through proceedings that ignore basic constitutional protections,” said John C. Williams, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “The court’s decision affirms that due process is not optional. This injunction ensures that people facing the loss of their liberty are informed of their rights and given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.”

“Today’s ruling is a major victory for Arkansans facing parole revocation, who have been systematically denied their constitutional rights to notice, counsel, and a fair hearing,” said Samir Deger-Sen, partner at Latham & Watkins. “This decision confirms that all Arkansas, including people with disabilities, deserve meaningful access to the legal process.”

The case will now move forward on behalf of the certified class as the court continues to evaluate the full scope of relief necessary to bring Arkansas’s parole revocation system into compliance with the Constitution.

A copy of the order is available online here.

Read more about Fason v. Hamlet here.