Andrew Andersen v. Marisela Montes, Commissioner of California Board of Parole Hearings, et al.
FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus
Did this Court's ruling in Swarthout v. Cooke and Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska foreclose First Amendment challenges against statements of reasons for denying parole based on the exercise of protected First Amendment freedoms?
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; | 1. Did this Court's ruling in Swarthout v. Cooke and Greenholtz v. Inmates of i . Nebraska foreclose First Amendment challenges agasint statements of reasons ! that contain a reason for denying the benefit of parole when a reason for | denial is based on the exercise of protected First Amendment freedoms and : there was an opportunity to be heard? : i 2. Did this Court's ruling in Swarthout and Greenholtz foreclose facial challenges of the California parole suitability determination regulatory scheme under the i : First Amendment? : | 3. Did prisoners lose their First Amendment right to challenge parole denial i decisions that are based on the exercise of protected First Amendment freedoms? : : . ! 4. Did prisoners lose their First Amendment right to challenge parole suitability i ‘determination schemes on thier face under the First Amendment . . . ! 5. Are prisoners allowed to challenge parole suitability determination schemes using the Turner v. Safley test under the First Amendment? ; | i . i iig