P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 09- 3017

P A P RI S ON S OC I E T Y; J ULI A D

. HA LL; GR EGO RY H. KN I GH T; F I GHT F OR L I F E RS I NC ; WI L L I AM GOL DS BY ; J O A N P O R T E R ; G R A T E R F R IE N D S IN C .; J OAN F

. GAUKE R; VI NC E NT J OHNS ON; F RI E NDS CO M M I T T E E T O AB OL I S H T HE DE AT H P E NAL T Y I NC

. ; KUR T RO S E NB E RG ; P E NNS YL VANI A AB OL I T I ONI S T S UNI T E D AGAI NS T T HE DE AT H P E NAL T Y; T E RR Y R UM S E Y; R O G E R B U E H L ; D O U G L A S H O L L IS ; D IA N N A H O L L IS

v. PED RO A

. CO RT ES, Secr et ary , C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a; HO NO RA BLE EDW AR D G

. REN DELL; J OSE P H B. S CARNATI , LT GOV ERNOR; TH O M A S W

. CO RB ETT , J R. ; LO U I SE B

. W I LLI A M S; RU SS ELL A. W ALSH , Ph

. D. ; J OH N E. W ETZEL

( Pur s uantt o Fed. R

. A pp. P. 43)2 Jo se p h B . S c a rn a ti, T h o m a s W . C o rb e tt, L oui s e B

. W i l l i ams, R us s el l A

. W al s h, Jo h n E . W e tze l,

A p p e llan ts

N o. 09- 3018

P E NNS YL VANI A P RI S ON S OC I E T Y; D O U G LA S H O LLI S; PA RO LE PL A I N TI FFS, KE I T H S M I T H, J AC KI E L E E T HOMP S ON (P u rsua n t t o F

. R

. A

. P

. 1 2 (A ))

v. PED RO A

. CO RT ES; HO NO RA BLE EDW AR D G

. REN DELL; J OSE P H B. S CARNATI , LT

. GOV ERNOR; TH O M A S W

. CO RB ETT , J R. ; LO U I SE B

. W I LLI A M S; RU SS ELL A. W ALSH , Ph

. D. ; J OH N A

. W ETZEL

P e n n s yl v a n i a P r i s o n S o c i e t y, D ougl as H ol l i s , K ei t h Sm i t h, J acki e Lee Thom ps on,

A p p e llan tsH o n o ra b le A rth u r L

. A lar c ó n , S e n io r U n ited S tate s C irc u it * J ud ge fort he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 3 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 1- 97- cv- 01731) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

A r gued A pr i l 19, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , A M B R O and A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober1, 2010)
T h o m as W

. C o rbb ett , Jr. A t t or neyG ener al R icha rd A

. S h ee tz, Jr. E xecut i ve D eputyA t t orneyG ener al A m yZ app ( A r gued) C hi ef D eputyA t t orneyG ener al Speci al L i t i gat i on Sect i on O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al 1 6 th F loo r, S tr aw b erryS q u are H arr i s bur g, PA 17120 C ouns el forA ppel l ant s / C r os s - A ppel l ees4 St ephen A

. W hi nt s on ( A r gued) 245 N or t h B r oad St r eet Sui t e 300 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llee s/C ro ss -A p p e llan ts

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udge W e a re a sk e d to d e c id e w h e th e r a n a m e n d m e n t to A rticle I V , § 9( a) of the C o n sti tut i on of the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a, t hatal t er s t he vot i ng pr ocedur es empl oy ed byt he P e n n sy lv a n ia B o a rd o f P a rd o n s to re q u ir e u n a n im ityin r ecomm endi ng par dons and comm ut ati ons forl i fe- s ent ence d pr i s oner s t o t he G overnor , vi ol at es t he E x Post Facto C l aus e of th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed thatt he cons t i tut i onal amendm ent , pas s ed byPenns y l vani a v o t er s i n 1997 ( “1997 A m endment ”) , vi ol at es the E x P os tFacto C laus e f

o r prison ers s ent ence d t o a t erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm entpr i ort o it s eff ect i ve d a te. B e c a u se n o n e o f

th e p ri s o n e rs w h o a re se e k in g re lief in t hi s act i on has sh ow n t hatther e i s a s i gni fi cantr i s k the 1997 A m endmentw i l l i ncr eas e the l ength of their puni s hm ent , an el ementes s ent i al t o es t abl i s hi ng an ex pos tf acto v i o l at i on, P lai n ti ff s h av e f ail ed to st ate a v iable c lai m . W e w il l th ere fo rePr i ort o i t s amendm ent , Pa. C ons t
. art
. I V , § 9( b) pr ovi ded: 1 T he B oar d of Par dons s hal l cons i s t of the L ieut enantG overnorw ho s hal l be cha i r m an, the A t t o rn e yGen e r a l a n dthr ee mem ber s appoi nt ed by the G o v e rn o r w ith the c o n sen t of tw o -th ir d s o r a m aj or i t yof the mem ber s el ect ed t o t he Senat e as i s s peci fi ed byl aw for term s of s i x y ear s . T he t hr ee me mbe r s appoi nt ed bythe G overnors hal l be r es i dent s of P enns y l vani a and s hal l be r ecogni zed l eade r s i n t hei rfi el ds ; one s hal l be a mem berof 5 r ever s e and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s t he ex p o st fa c to act i on. I U ndert he C ons t i tut i on of the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a, t he G overnori s empow er ed “i n al l cr i m i nal cas es exce pti m peac hm ent
. . . t o gr antr epr i eves , comm ut at i on of s ent ence s and par dons

. . . . ” Pa. C ons t
. art
. I V , § 9 ( a)

. “Li ke A r t i cl e I I o f t he U

. S. C ons t i tut i on, A r t i cl e I V of the P enns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on del i neat es pow er s of the exe cut i ve br anch. ” P a. P r is on Soc’ y v. C or t és , 508 F. 3d 156, 159 n. 4 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ P r is on Soci et y I ”)

. T he G overnor ’ s deci s i on w hethert o comm ut e a s ent ence i s bas ed upon r ecomm endat i ons m ade byt he Penns y l vani a B oar d o f Par dons ( “the B oar d of P a r d o n s ” ) , a l s o p a r t o f t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h

. P a . Co n s t
. a r t
. I V, § 9 (b ) ; see als o C om m on w ealth ex rel

. C aterv. M yers , 412 Pa. 1t he bar , one a penol ogi s t , and t he t hi r d a doct orof m ed ici n e, psy ch iatri st or p sy ch o log ist

. T h e b o ard sh a ll k e e p re c o rd s o f its a c tio n s, w h ich sh a ll at a ll tim e s b e o p e n f

o r p u b lic in s p e c tio n . P a. C o n st. art. IV , § 9 (b) (am en d ed 1 9 9 7 ). W hi l e comm ut at i ons of s ent ence s and par dons forper s ons 2 convi ct ed of c r i m es ar e both act s carr i ed outbythe G overnorof Penns y l vani a underhi s orhercl emencypow er , the i s s ue relev an t in th is ap p ea l inv o lves o n ly ac ti o n s tak en b ythe B o ard of Par dons on appl icati ons forcomm ut at i on byi nm at es s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtpar ol e. 6 67, 71 ( 1963) ( “The B oar d o f P ar dons i s a boar d of cl emency w hi c h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y o r d a i n e d t o r e c o mme n d t o t he G o v e rn o r o f P e n n s y lv a n ia th e g ra n t o r d e n ia l o f c le m e n c y , i.e ., comm ut at i on of s ent ence o r par don of per s ons w ho have be en co n v ict ed o f a n d sen tenc ed fo r crim e.”). 2 Pr i or t o Nov e mbe r4 , 1 9 9 7 , Ar t i c l e I V, § 9 ( a ) o f t he C ons t i tut i on of the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a pr ovi ded, in re lev a n t p a rt, th a t: I n al l cr i m i nal cas es exce p t i m peac hm entthe G overnor s hal l have t he pow er t o r emi tfi nes and for fei tur es , t o gr antr ep ri eves , comm ut at i on of s ent ence s and par dons ; butno pardo n s hal l be gr ant ed, nors ent ence comm ut ed, exce pt o n t he r ecomm endat i on i n w r i t i ng o f a maj o r i t y of the7 B oar d of Par dons , aft erful l hea ri ng i n open s e s s io n , u p o n p u b lic n o tic e . . . . P a . C o n s t. a rt . IV , § 9 (a ) ( a m e n d e d 1 9 9 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n 1997, a bal l otques t i on pr opos i ng an amendm entt o the cons t i tut i on t hatw o ul d al t erthe composi t i on of and vot i ng p ro c e d u re s e m p lo y e d b yth e B o a rd o f P a rd o n s w a s s c h e d u led to be s ubm i tt ed to Pennsy l vani a vot er s . T he pr opos ed bal l ot ques t i on r ead: Shal l t he Penns y l van ia C ons t i tut i on be amended t o r equi re a unani m ous r ecomm endat i on of the B oar d of Par dons befor e the G overnorcan pa r don orcomm ut e the s ent ence of an i ndi vi du al s ent ence d i n a cr i m inal cas e t o death orl i fe i m pr i s onm ent , t o r equi r e onl ya maj or i ty v o te of the S en ate to a p p ro v e th e G o v ern o r’s appoi nt m ent s to t he B oar d, and t o s ubs t i tut e a cr i m e vi ct i m for an att orneyand a c orr ect i ons exp ertfor a pen ologi stas B oard m em bers? P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 5 6 5 P a. 52 6 , 5 3 2 (20 0 1 ). T he 1997 A m endmentof the B oar d of Par dons ’ pr ocedur es w as m o tiv a te d b ya 1 9 9 4 in c id e n t i n w h ic h R e g in a ld M c F a d d e n , a pr i s oners ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw ho had bee n gr ant ed comm ut at i on byt he G overnor , aft er a m aj or i t yof the B oar d of Par dons vot ed t o r ecomm end i t , comm i t t ed a ne w m ur deri n t he S tate o f N e w Y o rk

. (2 d A m e n d C o m p l. ¶ 2 6 ); see al so He a rin gs o n P e n n sy lva n ia B o a rd o f P ro b a tio n a n d

P a ro leS e e a l s o Cha n g i n gPe n n s

y lv a n i a ’s S e n t e n c i n gPh i l o s o p hy 3 T hrou gh the E l i m in a t i on of Pa rol e f or V i olentO f f end ers , 5 W i denerJ

. Pub. L

. 269 ( 1996) , di s cus s i ng the M cFadden c as e: O ne o f t he m ostsensat i on al cases of earl yrel ease w as t hatof R egi nal d M cFadden. M cFadden w as p ard o n ed af

ter se rvin g less than tw en ty -five y ea rs o f a lif e se n ten c e f

o r m u rd e rin g a six ty -y e a r-o ld P h ilad e lp h ia w o m a n . N in e ty -tw o d a y s a f ter h is J ul y7, 1994, r el eas e t o N ew Y ork St at e, undert he i nt er s t at e par ol e s y s t em, M cFadden w as char ged w i t h, and l at er convi ct ed of, beat i ng and r api ng a fi fty - fi ve- y ear - ol d Sout h N y ack w om an. H e w as al s o char ged w i t h r api n g and murde r i ng a s eventy - ei ght [- ] y ear [- ] ol d L ong I s l an d w om an. M a rl e n e A ig , 24 Y

ears , A C onvi ct

, He Pl ayed the Sys t em , P I T T SBURGHP OS T G AZ E TTE , M ay30, 1995, atC 1. M or e r ece nt ly , M cFadden w as c o n v icte d o f th e m u rd e r o f a f o rty -tw o -y e a r-o ld L o n g Is la n d m a n . C onvi ct ed Mur der erFound G u ilt y A g a in , H ARRI SBURGP AT RI OT E VEN I NG N E WS , M a r. 1 4 , 1 9 9 6 , at B 4 . B e c a u se p a ro le is 8 R e f o r ms B e f o r e th e Ho u s e J

u d i c i a r y Co mm . , 1995 G en. A ss e m b ly 1 7 9 th S ess. (P a. Jun e 9 , 1 9 9 5 ); S

. o f P a. Jud ici ary C o m m . , C h airm an ’s R ep . Inv esti g ati o n into the P aro le of R obert S im o n , 1 9 9 5 G en . A ssem b ly , 1 7 9 th S ess. 1-6 (P a. 19 9 6 ); ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 19 ( ci t i ng A 000522- A 000525, te s t i m onyof M a rk S in g e l) ); A p p e lle e s ’ B r. 4 3 .)

. 3not av ai l abl e t o per s ons s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , M cFadden w as rele as ed thr ough t he p ardon p rocess . Id

. at296 n. 95. 9 O n N ovember4, 1997, Penns y l vani a vot er s appr oved the bal l ot m e a s u r e . Ar t i c l e I V, § 9 ( a ) o f t h e Con s t i tu t i o n o f t he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a w as amended t o r ead a s foll ow s: I n al l cr i m i nal cas es exce pti m peac hm ent , t he G overnors h al l have pow ert o r emi tfi nes and forfei tur es , t o gr antr epr i eves , comm ut at i on of s ent ence s and par dons ; butno p ard o n s hal l be gr ant ed, nors ent ence comm ut ed, exce p t on the r e c o mme n d a t i o n i n wr i t i n g o f a ma j o r i t y o f t he B oar d o f Par dons , and, i n the ca s e of a s ent ence o f d eat h orl i fe i m pr i s onm ent , on t he unani m ous r ecomm endat i on i n w r i t i ng of the B oar d of Pa r d o n s , a f

t e r f u l l h e a r i n g i n o p e n s e s s i o n , upon due publ i c not i ce. Pa. C ons t
. , ar t
. I V , § 9( a)

. A ccor di ngl y , t he 1997 A m endment change d t he number o f vot es neede d t o s uppor tt he Par don B oar d’ s r ecomm endat i on t o t he G overnor t hat a l i fe se nt ence be comm ut ed t o a t erm of y ear s w i t h the pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e fr om m aj or i t yt o unani m ous and s ubs t i tut ed a cr i m e vi ct i m i ns t ead of an att or neyand a c or r ect i ons exper t instead of a pe nol ogi s tas10 B oard m em bers. A Penns y lva ni a l aw di s t i ngui s hes betw een the exe r ci s e of t he G overnor ’s c l emencypow ert o gr antpar dons and comm ut at i ons pur s uant t o t he C ons t it u t i on of t he C om m onw eal t h, and the author i t yt o r el eas e a pr i s oneron par ol e, w hi ch i s an i ndepende ntfunct i on of the B oar d of P ro b a tio n a n d P a ro le. U n li k e th e B o a rd o f P a rd o n s, w h ich is cons t i tut i onal l ym andat ed and ope r at es as a funct ion of the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof J us t i ce, 71 Pa. C ons . St at
. § 12, t he Penns y l vani a B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e i s an i ndepende nt b o a rd , o ri g in a lly c re a te d b y th e P a ro le A c t o f 1 9 4 1

. See P a ro le A ctof 1941, 1941 Pa. L aw s 861 ( codi fi ed as amended at61 Pa. St at
. A nn. §§ 3 3 1

. 1-

. 21 r epealed by A ctof A ug. 11, 2009, ch. 6 1 , 2 0 0 9 P a . L a w s 3 3 ). T h e P a ro le A c t s tate s th a t “ [ t]h e p a ro le s y s t e m p r o v i d e s s e v e r a l b e n e f i t s t o t h e c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m, i ncl udi ng t he pr ovi s i on of adequa t e s upervi s i on of the off ender w h ile p ro tec tin g th e p u b lic, th e o p p o rtu n ity f o r th e o f f e n d e r to become a us eful m emberof s oci etyand th e di ver s i on of appr opr i at e off

enders from pr i s on. ” Id .; see al so 61 P a. C on s. St at
. § 6111( a)

- ( b) ( 2010) ( pr ovi di ng t hatthe B oar d of P r o b at i on and Par ol e i s “an i ndepen d ent admi ni s t r at i ve boar d fort he a d m in istra tio n o f

th e p ro b a tio n a n d p a ro le la w s o f th is C om m onw eal t h” c ons i s t i ng of ni ne mem ber s w ho ar e appoi nt ed b ythe G o v ern o r). B y contr as t , “[t ] he cons t i tut i onal pow erof the G overnorA ll fif tysta tes h a v e in c o rp o ra te d c lem e n c yp ro v isio n s in 4 th e i r r e s p e c tiv e c o n s titu tio n s . See A l a. C ons t
. amend. 38; A las k a C o n st. a rt. III, § 2 1 ; A riz

. C o n st. a rt. V , § 5 ; A rk . C o n st. ar t
. V I , § 18; C al

. C ons t
. art
. V , § 8; C ol o. C ons t
. art
. I V , § 7; C o n n . C o n st. a rt. IV , § 1 3 ; D e l. C o n st. a rt. V II, § 1 ; F la. C o n st. 11 to g ra n t p a rd o n s a n d c o m m u ta tio n s o f s e n te n c e is e x c lu s iv e . . . ” C o m m o n w e a lth ex re l. B a n k s v . C a in , 3 4 5 P a. 58 1 , 5 8 5 (19 4 2 ). A s th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p r e m e C o u rt e x p lain e d in C om m onw eal th v. Zook , 5 3 2 P a. 79 , 1 1 4 (19 9 2 ): T h e G o v e rn o r ’s p o w e r to c o m m u te s e n ten c e s is f o u n d w ith in A rticle IV , § 9 o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C o n s titu tio n . U n d e r o u r C o n s titu tio n o f 1 7 7 6 , § 20, t he Supr eme E xecut i ve C ounci l had t he pow er t o gr ant par dons and r emi t fi nes i n all ca s es e x c e p ti n c a s e s o f

i mpe a c h me n t
. Th i s d o c t r i ne h as evol ved overt he y ear s i nt o the pr es entday en ac tm en t, w h ich p rov ides in p erti n en t part: (a) In al l cr i m i nal cas es except i m peac hm ent , t he G overnors hal l have pow ert o r emi t fi nes and for f e i tu r e s , t o g r a n tr e p r i e v e s , c o mmut a t i o n of s ent ence s and par dons ; butno p ard on s hal l be gr ant ed, nors ent ence comm ut ed, except on the r ecomm endat i on i n w ri t i ng of a maj or i t yof the B oar d of Par dons , aft erful l hear ing i n open s e s s io n , u p o n d u e p u b lic n o tic e . . . . I d. ( ci t i ng Pa. C ons t
. art
. I V , § 9) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n B anks , 4ar t
. I V , § 8; G a. C o n st. ar t
. I V , § 2; H aw . C ons t
. ar t
. V , § 5; Id a h o C o n st. a rt. IV , § 7 ; Ill. C o n st. a rt. V , § 1 2 ; In d . C o n st. a rt. V , § 1 7 ; I o w a C o n s t
. a r t
. 4 , § 1 6 ; K a n . C o n s t
. a r t
. I , § 7 ; K y. C ons t
. § 77; L a. C ons t
. ar t
. I V , § 5( E ) ; M e. C ons t
. ar t
. V , pt
. 1, § 1 1 ; M d . C o n st. a rt. II, § 2 0 ; M a ss . C o n st. p t. II, c h . 2 , § 1 , art. 8; M i c h. Cons t
. a r t
. V , § 1 4; M i nn . Cons t
. a r t
. V , § 7 ; M i ss. C o n st. a rt. V , § 1 2 4 ; M o . C o n st. a rt. IV , § 7 ; M o n t. C o n st. a rt. V I , § 12; N eb. C ons t
. ar t
. I V , § 13; N ev. C ons t
. art. V , § 13; N .H . C o n st. p t. 2 , art. 5 2 ; N .J. C o n st. a rt. V , § 2 ; N .M . C o n st. art. V , § 6 ; N

. Y

. C o n st. art. IV , § 4 ; N

. C

. C o n st. art. III , § 5 (6); N .D . C o n st. a rt. V , § 7 ; O h io C o n st. a rt. III, § 1 1 ; O k la. C o n st. art. V I, § 1 0 ; O r. C o n st. art. V , § 1 4 ; P a. C o n st. art. IV , § 9 ; R

. I. C o n st. a rt. IX , § 1 3 ; S .C . C o n st. a rt. IV , § 1 4 ; S .D

. C o n st. a rt. I V , § 3; T enn. C ons t
. art
. I I I , § 6; T ex. C ons t
. ar t
. I V , § 11; U t ah Co n s t
. a r t
. VI I , § 1 2 ; Vt

. Co n s t
. c h

. I I , § 2 0 ; Va

. Co n s t
. a r t
. V, § 12; W as h. C ons t
. art
. I I I , § 9; W

. V a. C onst. art. V II , § 11; W i s . C ons t
. ar t
. V , § 6; W y o. C ons t
. ar t
. I V , § 5. 12 t he courtdi s cus s ed the diff ere nces betw een the conc ept s of p a ro le a n d p a rd o n s a n d e x p lain e d th a t: [t ] her e i s a r adi cal d iffer ence betw een a par don and a pa r ol e. A par don i s t he exe r ci s e of the so v e re ig n ’s p re ro g a tiv e o f m e r c y . It co m p lete ly fre es th e o ff

en d er f rom the co n tr o l o f th e state. I t notonl yexempt s hi m fro m fur t herpuni s hm ent butr el i eves hi m fr om al l the l egal di s abi l i t i es resu lt ing fro m h is co n v ict ion

. Itb lots ou t th e v ery exi s t ence of hi s gui l t , s o t hat , i n the ey e of the13 l aw , he i s t her eaf

t eras i nnocentas i f he ha d never comm i t t e d t h e o f

f e n s e . A pa r o l e , o n th e o t h er hand, does notobl i t er at e t he cr i m e orfor gi ve the o f f e n d e r . It is n o t an a c t o f c lem e n c y , b u t a penol ogi cal m ea s u r e f

o rth e d i s c i pl i narytr eatm ent of pr i s oner s w ho s eem capable o f r ehabi l i t at i on out s i d e o f p r i s o n wal l s . I t d o e s n o t s e t a s i de or aff ectt he s ent ence ; t he co n vi ctr emai ns i n t he l egal cus t odyof t he s t at e and unde rthe contr ol of i t s agent s , s ubj ect atanyt i m e, forbr eac h of condi t i on, t o be r eturned t o the pena l i ns t i tut i on. N ei t heri s a par ol e a c om m utat ion of s ent ence w i t hin the m eani ng of thatt erm i n the cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on. W h en ourpr es ent cons t i tut i on w as adopt ed, par ol e, as a penol ogi cal expedi ent , w as unknow n t o A m er i can j ur i s t s and leg isla to rs, a n d c o m m u ta tio n w a s th e n g e n e ra lly u n d e rsto o d a s m e a n in g a re d u c tio n in th e len g th of the s ent ence , eff

ect i ng a di s char ge of the p riso n e r w ith o u t an y f

u rth e r su p e rv isio n o v e r h im byt he st at e authori t i es. B a n k s , 3 4 5 P a . a t 5 8 4 -8 5 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See a l so C om m onw eal th v. Sut l ey , 474 Pa. 256, 273- 74, 274 n. 12 ( 1977) ( “The pow er of comm ut at i on i s an adj unct of t he p ard oni ng pow er, and can be gr ant ed onl ybythe author i t yi n w hi ch the par doni ng pow err es i des

. . . . A s defi ned byt hi s C our t , t he p a r d o n i s : t h e e x e r c i s e o f th e s o v e r e i g n ’ s p r e r o g a t i v e o f m e r c y.V ar i ous r epr es ent at i onal or gani zat i ons , i ncl udi ng t he 5 Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci ety , cert ai n pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s , and t hr ee i ndi vi dual pr i s oner s fi l ed t hi s or i gi nal act i on chal l engi ng the 1 9 9 7 A m en d m en t ( co ll ec ti v e ly r ef erred to as “P lai n ti ff

s”). S u ed in their of

ficial cap ac it ies w ere P ed ro A

. C o rt és, S ec retary o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia; E d w a rd R e n d e ll, G o v ern o r of

P en n sy lvan ia; a n d B o ard o f P ard o n s m em b ers L i eut enantG overnorJ os eph B

. Scarnat i , A t t orneyG ener al T ho m as W

. C orbet t , J r . , L oui s e W i l l i ams, D r . R us s el l W al s h, a n d J o h n W e tz e l ( c o lle c tiv e ly “t h e C o m m o n w e a lth ” ). Fol l ow i ng t he D i s t r ictC our t ’ s j udgm entupon r emand fr o m thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n P r is on Soc’ y I, curr entB oar d of P a rd o n s m e m b e rs L ieu ten a n t G o v e rn o r Jo se p h B . S c a rn a ti, A tt o rne yG en era l T h o m as W

. C o rbe tt , Jr. , L o u ise W il li am s, D r. R us s el l W al s h, and J ohn W et zel ( “the B oard o f Par dons ”) a p p e a led. N ei t her t he G ov ernor no r t he Secret ary of Stat e is part ici p at i ng i n t hes e cr os s appea l s . T he onl yPl ai nt i ffs w ho 14 . . .” ) ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). B T hi s act i on w as o ri gi nal l ybr oughtas a pet i t i on for r evi ew i n t he C om m onw eal t h C our tof Penns y l vani a on O ct ober 16, 1997, befor e t he bal l otques t i on pr opos i ng the 1997 A m endmenthad bee n appr oved byvot er s . I n the ori gi nal act i on, t he P enns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyand other s chal l enged t he bal l otques t i on as vi ol at ive of var i ous pr ovi s i ons of the U nit ed S t at es and P enn sy l van i a C on st i tuti on s. See Pa. P r is on 5f i l e d a c r o s s - a p p e a l w e r e th e P e n n s yl v a n i a P r i s o n S o c i e t y, D ougl as H ol l i s , K ei t h Sm i t h, and J acki e Lee Thom ps on. 15 S o c ’y v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 7 2 7 A .2 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 5 ( P a . C o m m w . C t. 1 9 9 9 ), rev ’d , 5 6 5 P a . 5 2 6 (2 0 0 1 ). O n N ovember12, 1997, aft er vot er s appr oved the 1997 A m endment , t he C om m onw eal th r emoved t he ac t i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1 4 4 1 (a)

. O n J anuary5, 1998, Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntal l egi ng t hatt he 1997 A m endmentvi ol at es var ious pr ovi s i ons of the U ni t ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . O n Jan u ary1 5 , 1 9 9 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt g r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ j o i n t mo t i o n t o r e ma n d t h e s t a t e l a w c l a i ms and t o s t ayt he fe der al cl ai m s pendi ng r es ol ut i on of the s t at e l aw cl ai m s. T he C om m onw eal t h C our tdet erm i ned that“the N ovember4, 1997 vot e on the bal l otques t i on [w as] nul l and v o id , a s th e sin g le b a llo t q u e stio n c o n tain e d f iv e a m e n d m e n ts to t he Penns y l vani a C o n sti tut i on. ” P a. P r is on Soc’ y v. C o m m o n w e a lth , 7 2 7 A

. 2d at636. O n J ul y25, 2001, the S u p re m e C o u rt o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia re v e rse d th e C o m m o n w e a lth C our tand uphel d t he 1997 A m endment as pr oper l ys ubm i t t ed. P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 565 Pa. 526, 530, 537 (2 0 0 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t “th e v o ter s s h o u ld b e g iv e n f re e o p p ortun ity t o m odi fyt he funda m ent al l aw as m ays eem t o t hem fit

. . . . ”) ( quot i ng Tayl orv. K i ng , 2 8 4 P a . 2 3 5 (19 2 5 ) (ov erru led in p art b y Standerv. Kel l ey , 4 3 3 P a . 4 0 6 (1 9 6 9 ))

.16 O n July29 , 20 02 , aft er res olut i on of the st at e l aw cl ai m s, P lai n ti ff s fil ed a sec o n d am en d ed co m p lai n t i n the D istri ct C o u rt pr es ent i ng f

e d e r a l a n d s t at e cons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o t he 1997 A m e n d m e n t, i n c lu d in g a c laim th a t f o r p riso n e r s s e n ten c e d to l i fe i m pr i s onm entpr i ort o t he ef fec t i ve dat e of the 1997 A m endment , t h e ch ange i n the vot i ng r equi r ement s fort he B oar d of P ar dons vi ol at es the 

### E x Post F ac to C l aus e as al l eged i n C ountI I

. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntal s o al l eges that the 1 9 9 7 A m en d m en t violates: th e righ ts o f li fe p ri so n ers and pri soners und er death sentence un der the D ue P rocess C laus e (C o u n t I ); the E q u al P rotec ti o n C laus e (C o u n t I II) ; P enn sy l van i a vo t ers ’ r i gh t s und er the D ue P rocess C l ause ( C ountI V ) ; t he Ei ght h A m endment ( C ount s V and V I ) ; and the Gu a r a n t e e Cl a u s e ( Co u n tVI I )

. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o b r o u g h tc l a i ms u n d er the P en n sy lvan ia C o n sti tuti o n (C o u n ts V II a n d V III ). In their sec o n d amended compl ai nt , Pl ai nt i ffs r eques t ed d ec laratory and i nj unct i ve r el i ef. O n A u g u st 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 , the C o m m o n w e a lth m o v e d to di s m i s s Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s econd amended compl ai nt pur s uant t o Fed. R

. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) and 12(b) ( 6)

. O n M ar ch 6, 2003, t he D i s t r i ct C our ti s s ued a mem o randum i n w hi ch i tgr ant ed the C o m m o n w e a lth ’s m o ti o n to d ism iss C o u n ts I II th rou g h V III p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ), an d o rd e re d th e d ism iss a l o f th e c laim i n C ount I t hat due proc es s r i ght s of i nm at es w i t h l i fe s ent ence s w ere v iolated. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s m o tio n to d ism iss th e d u e p ro c e ss c laim s o f in m a tes u n d e r d e a th sen tenc es as a ll eg ed in C o u n t I , as w ell as th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s17 m o ti on t o di s m i s s t he pr i s on i nm at es ’ cl ai m underthe E x P ost Fact o C l aus e as al l ege d i n C ountI I

. ( M em. O p. , M ar ch 6, 2 0 0 3

. ) I n deny i ng t he m ot i on t o di s m i s s the ex pos tf acto c l a i m, t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt rel i ed upon Supr eme C our tcas es anal y zi ng th e im p a c t o f

c h a n g e s in th e e lig ib ili tyre q u ire m e n ts f o r p a ro le r el eas e enact ed by var i ous s t at es . I tconcl uded thatr es ol ut i on of t he ex p o s tf

a c t o c laim requi red a factual anal y si s, becau se
“ wh e n a n a me n d me n t‘ d o e s n o tb yi t s o wn t e r ms s h o w a s i gni fi cantr i s k, t he [pr i s oner ] m us tdemonstr at e, byev idence dr aw n fr om t he rule’s p r act i cal i m pl ement at i on byt he age ncy char ged w i t h exer ci s i ng di s cr eti on, thati t s r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on w i l l r es ul ti n a l onger p eriod of i ncar cer at i on t han undert he ea r l i errul e. ’ ” (Id

. at 11- 12 ( quot i ng G ar nerv. Jones , 529 U

. S. 244, 255 ( 2000) ( cons i der i ng w hetheran amendm ent to a G eor gi a rul e thatchange d par ol e r econs i der at i on r evi ew pr ocedur es vi ol at ed the E x P o st Fa c to C laus e)). ) B ot h s i des m oved forr econs i der at i on of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s M ar ch 6, 2003, or der

. T he Pl ai nt i ffs argue d thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d r econs i deri t s rul i ng on t he ex p o st fa c to cl ai m i n l i ghtof Sm i th v. D oe , 538 U

. S. 84 ( 2003) , w her ei n the Supr eme C our thel d thatin d et erm i ni ng w hetherl egi s l at i on v i o l a t e s t he E

x Post Facto C lau se , a c o u rt m u st “ a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e leg isla tu re m e a n t th e sta tu te to e s ta b li sh ‘c iv il’ pr ocee di ngs . ” Id

. at 92 ( quot i ng Kans as v. Hendr i cks , 52 1 U. S. 34 6, 36 1 (199 7))

. T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed the Plai nti ffs’ m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. I thel d t hat18 [ t]h e p re se n t c a se is d istin g u ish a b le f ro m b o th D oe and Hendr i cks i n that i t i nvol ves a cha l l enge t o r etr oact i ve cha nges i n s t at e l aw governi ng p risoners’ parol e, i nst ead o f cha l l eng es to l egi s l at i on r egar di ng “s exual pr edat or s ” or s exual o f f e n d e rs . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c o n sis ten tly hel d t hat , i n cas es regar di ng r etr oact i ve cha nges i n s t ate l aw governi ng pr i s oner s ’ par ol e, the re lev a nt i nq uiryis w h e th e r th e a m e n d m e n ts c re a te a si gn i fi cant r i sk of p rolong i ng pri soners’ sent ences. ( M em. O p. , M ay 6, 2003, at 5- 6 ( emphasi s added) (ci t i ng G ar ner , 5 2 9 U .S . at 2 5 1 ; L y n c e v . M

a th is , 519 U

. S. 433, 441 ( 1997) ( cons i der i ng w hether r evi s i ons i n Fl or i da l aw i m pact i ng t h e a war d o f

e a r l yp a r o l e r e l e a s e c r e d i t s t o p r i s o n i n mat es vi ol at es t he E

x P ost Fa cto C lau se ); C al

. D ep’ tof C or r . v. Mor al es , 514 U

. S. 499 ( 1995) ( cons i d er i ng w hethera l aw c h a n g in g th e p ro c e d u re s co n c e rn in g th e a c c e ss ib ili tyo f p a ro le s ui t abil i t yhear i ngs vi ol at ed the E x P o st Fa c to C laus e); Mi cke ns - Thom as v. V

aughn , 321 F. 3d 374 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 3) (c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r m a ter ial m o d if ica tio n s o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia par ol e l aw s vi ol at ed the E x P o st Fa c to C la u s e ).) T h e C o m m o n w e a lt h m o v e d th e D istric t C o u rt to re c o n sid e r its p a rtial d e n ial o f P lain tiff s’ d u e p ro c e ss c laim in C o u n t I re g a rd in g p r iso n e rs s e n ten c e d to d e a th , an d u rg e d it in ste a d to d ism iss th e c laim in its e n tirety . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth argued t hat “[w ]hether o r n o tcert ai n B oard [o f P ardons]N eith er p artyad d resse d R u le 12 (b)(1 ) i n an yo f th e p ap ers 6 fi l ed in con necti on w i t h the C om m on w eal t h’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss ori n t he part i es ’ cr os s - m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on. T he D i s t r i ct C our tal s o di d notdi s cus s R ul e 12( b) ( 1) i n deny i ng the C om m on w e a lth ’s m oti on or i n rul i ng on the p art i es’ cross m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on. 19 m ember s ar e bi as ed aga i ns tgr ant i ng cl emency does notr ender t he am endment uncons t i tut i onal , al t hough i tm aybe gr ounds for di s qual i fi cat i on i n a part i cul ar c ase . ” ( D efs

. ’ B r . i n Supp. of M o t
. f o rCon s i d e r a t i o n , Apr i l 4 , 2 0 0 3 , a t4

- 5

. ) Th e Di s t r i ct C o u rtag ree d w ith the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s arg u m en t i n p art. It hel d t hat [t]he p rejud ice o f in d ividu al P aro le B o ard m em bers i s i rr el evan t , as P l ai nti ffs m ustest abli sh t hatt he amendm ent s w oul d notbe val i d underany se t o f c ir c u m sta n c e s. . . . P lain tiff s m a ystill p u r s u e t h e a r g u me n tt h a tt h e i n c l u s i o n o f a c r i me vi ct i m on t he B oard i m perm i s s i bl yi ntr oduces d e c is io n -m a k e r b ia s i n t o th e p a ro le p ro c e s s . (M em . O p . , M ay6 , 2 0 0 3 at 7) (em p h ase s ad d ed ). 6 O n A ugus t19, 2005, Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a M ot i on for Sum m ary Ju d g m ent
. I tw as r efi l ed on A ugus t23, 2005 as an A m ended M ot i on forSu m m aryJ udgm ent , pur s uantt o the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i n stru cti o n . P lai n ti ff s m o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm entas t o C ountI I on t he gr ound t hatt he 1997 A m endment20 “c o n sti tutes an im p rop er ex p o st fa c to i m pos i t i on of addi t i onal puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on on p e rso n s w h o w e re se n ten c e d to d e a th o r to life in p riso n p rio r to th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

su c h A m e n d m e n t.” (P ls.’ A m . M e m . in S u p p . o f T h eir M o t. fo r S u m m . J. , A u g . 2 3 , 2 0 0 5

. ) O n Sept ember13, 2005, t he C om m o n w ea l t h fi l ed a M ot i on for Sum m ary J udgm ent as t o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enge t o t he i ncl us i on of a c r i m e vi ct i m on t he B oar d of Par dons on t he g ro u n d th a t i t i m p e r m is s ib ly i n tr o d u c e d d e c is io n -m a k e r b ias in to t he c l e me n c yp r o c e s s i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e Due Pr o c e s s Cl a us e. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth a lso m o v e d f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t as to P lai n ti ff s’ ex p o st fa c to cl ai m , on t he ground thatPl ai nt i ffs had

“ f a iled to sh o w th a t th e a p p lica tio n o f th e A m e n d m e n t w ill r es ul t in a l ongerper i od of i ncar cer at i on forl i fe- s ent ence d inm at es [and theyhave nots how n] t hatt heyt hemsel ves w ere in d iv id u a llyd isa d v a n tag e d b yth e A m e n d m e n t.” (D e f s.’ B r. in S u p p . o f T h eir M o t. S u m m . J. , at 23

. ) O n M ar ch 13, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC o ur tgr ant ed the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ M ot i on forSum m ary J udgm ent , hol di ng t hat t he new r equi r ement of B oar d unani m i t y i n r ecomm endi ng par dons for p ri soner s s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw ho had comm i t t ed th e ir c rim e s b e f

o re th e 1 9 9 7 A m e n d m e n t’s e f f e c tiv e d a te v iola t ed the E

x Post Facto C l aus e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed re lie f in a ll o th e r r e s p e c ts
. P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 41 9 F. S u p p . 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 6 2 (M .D . P a . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e p a rties f

iled a tim e lya p p e a l an d c ro ss -a p p e a l to th is21 C our t
. T he C om m onw eal t h ar gued t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fa il ing t o di s m i s s or , al t ernat i vel y , t o gr antt hei rm ot i on for s um m aryj udgm enton the ex pos tf acto c la im

. P r is on Soci et y I, 508 F. 3d at160 n. 6. T he C om m onw eal t h al s o ar gued, fort he firstti m e on ap p ea l, that b o th th e D istri ct C o u rtan d this C o u rt l acke d j ur i s di ct i on overPl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s beca us e none o f the Pl ai nt i ffs had st andi ng under A r t i cl e II I of the U

. S. C ons t i tut i on. Id . at 1 6 9

. T h is C o u rt a g re e d th a t P lain tiff s’ p lea d in g s f

a iled to al l ege f act s demonstr at i ng that theym ett he r equi r ement s for s ta n d in g . Id

. at 162- 164 ( or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i ffs ) ; 1 64 (v o ter /ta x p a y e r p lain tiff s); 1 6 4 -1 6 9 (p riso n e r p lain tiff s). T h is C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: B eca us e the i s s ue of s t andi ng w as rai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al , none of the pl ai nt i ffs have h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t ev id e n c e o r to lit ig a te th is iss u e . W e w ill th e r e f o re d ism iss th is appea l w i t houtpr ej udi ce f o r l ack of

j ur i s di ct i on and r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t her p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is O p in io n to devel op t he r ecor d i n or dert o det erm i ne pl ai nt i ffs ’ s t andi ng t o br i ng thi s act i on. Id

. at169. B as ed upon t he conc l us i on t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs l acke d stan d ing , this C o u rtd id n o t r ea ch the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to d ism iss th is act i on or , al t ernat ivel y , gr ants um m aryj udgm entt o the C om m onw eal t h on the ex pos tf acto claim

. T he C om m o n w eal t h’ s appea l w as di s m i s s ed and the ca s e w asPl a i n t i f f s Rog e r Bue h l , Dou g l a s Hol l i s , a n d V i ncent 7 J ohns on w er e t he onl yi ndi vi dual pr i s onerpl ai nt i ffs r emai ni ng in th e s u it a t th e tim e o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ru lin g . 22 re m a n d e d to th e D istric t C o u rt so th a t th e P lain tiff s c o u ld pr es entevi dence orotherw i s e l i t i gat e the s t andi ng i s s ue. O n r e ma n d , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng r egar di ng t he s t andi ng i s s ue as t o eac h pl ai nt i ff on J une 2, 2008, A u g u st 6, 20 0 8 , an d A u g u st 7, 20 0 8

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P r is o n S o c ietyw a s th e o n ly p la in tiff th a t “s a tisf

ie[ d ] a ll o f

th e re q u ire m e n ts n e e d e d to qual i fyfort he or gani za ti o n al exce pt i on t o the pr ohi bi t i on on t hi r d par t ys t andi ng. ” P a. P r is on So c’y v. C or t és , 20 09 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 48995 *4 ( M

. D

. Pa. J une 11, 2009)

. T he D i s t r i ct C our tal s o concl uded thatnone of the remai ni ng i ndi vi dual pr i s onerpl ai nt i ffs had s t andi ng “bec aus e t heyhave nots uffe r ed ors how n t hatt heyw i l l i m m i nent l ys uffe ran i nj uryr es ul t i ng f ro m th e 1 9 9 7 A m e n d m e n ts to th e P e n n s y lv a n ia C o n s titu tio n .” 7 Id

. at*3. T he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o deni ed a m ot i on t o i nt ervene fi l ed b ypr i s oner s K ei t h Sm i t h and J acki e Lee Thom ps on, c o n c l u d i n g t h a tt h e i r “ i n t e r e s t s a r e a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y .

. . t he Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci ety . ” Id

. I n i t s J une 11, 2009 M emora ndum O pi ni on, t he D i s t r i ct C our t“r ei ns t at e[d] ” i t s pr i orrul i ngs on the C r os s - m ot i ons for S u m m aryJudg m ent fi l ed b ythe p art i es i n 2 00 5 (Plai nti ffs’ m ot i on fi l ed A ugus t23, 2005 and the C om m onw eal t h’ s m ot i on f ile d S e p te m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). Id

. at *4 9 (cit ing M em . an d O rde r,23 M a rc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , rep o rte d a t P a . P ris o n So c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 41 9 F. Supp. 2d at 6 5 9 , 6 6 1)

. I n i t s M ar ch 13, 2006 M emora ndum O pi ni on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded t hat t he 1997 A m endment v i o l a t e s t he E

x Post Facto C l aus e bec aus e r etr os pect i ve appl i cat i on of the 1997 A m e n d me n t“ c l e a r l ydi s advant age[ s ] the appl i cant s . . . [bec aus e i t s ] change i n vot i ng r equi r ement s , fr om m aj or i t yt o unani m i t y , cr eat es m or e than a s pecul at i ve and at t enuat ed r i s k of i ncr eas i ng t he m eas ur e of puni s hm entappl i ed t o l i fe se nt ence d i nm at es . ” P a . P rison S o c’y , 419 F. Supp. 2d at 661- 62. T he D i s t r i ct C our tcons i der ed evi dence dr aw n fr om t he new l aw ’s p ract i cal i m pl ement at i on, i

. e. , an ana l y s i s of the par t i es ’ s t i pul at ed r at e and f r equenc yof comm ut at i ons gr ant ed t o l i fe- s ent en ce d i nm at es i n Penns y l vani a betw een 1970 a nd 2005. I tconcl uded that , as appl i ed t o thos e i nm at es s ent ence d aft eri t s eff

ect i ve dat e, the 1997 A m endmentpos ed a

“ s ig n if ic a n t ris k ” o f in c re a s e d p u n is h m e n t. I d. at 658, 660- 61 n. 1 & n. 2. B as ed upon i t s fi ndi ng that“the t ot al num berof r ecomm endat i ons b ythe B oar d forcomm ut at i on forl i fe s ent ence d pr i s oner s [w as ] s i gn ifi cant l yl ow erthan the number of r ecomm endat i ons in t he ei ghty ear s pr i ort o the [1997 A ] m endment s ’ pas s age, ” the D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hat even t hough a l es s than unani m ous vot e di d not guar ant ee a l i fe s ent ence d pr i s onercomm ut at i on pr i or t o t he pass age of t he 1997 amendm ent s and a lth o u g h c o m m u tatio n is n o t co m p lete ly for ecl os ed fol l ow i ng the passa ge of the a m e n d m e n ts, th e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n ts s ig n if ica n tly24 r educe d t he l i kel i hood of a l i fe s ent ence d pr i s oner r ece i vi ng a r ecomm en d at i on bythe B oar d for c o m m u tatio n a n d , a s su c h , th e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n ts m a k e c o m m u tatio n s an d p a ro le e v e n m o re re m o te for tho se i nm at es. Id . a t 6 6 0 -6 1

. T he B oar d of Par dons and the Penns y l vani a Pr i s on S o c iety , as w e ll as H o lli s , S m it h , an d T h o m p so n f iled tim e ly cr os s - appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or der o f June 11, 2 0 0 9

. T he D i s t r i ctC o u r tas s ert ed j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m at t er p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 1 (a ). T h is C o u rt h as juri sd ict ion o v er the ap p ea l f rom the D istri ct C o u rt ’s f in a l o rd e r p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. T w o di s pos i t i ve i s s ues r emai n i n t hi s pr otr act ed l i t i gat i on. W e mu stdeci de w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as re q u ire d to c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to d e ter m in e its s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overthe ex p o st fa c to clai m of ea ch Pl ai nt i ff, pur s uant t o t hi s C our t ’ s m andat e i n P r is on Soc’ y I

. We m u st a lso a d d re ss th e q u e stio n w h e th e r th e 1 9 9 7 A m e n d m e n t, w hi ch conc erns t he exer ci s e of a G overnor ’ s s over ei gn pow erof cl emencyas author i zed bya s t at e’ s vot er s , vi ol at es t he E x P ost Fact o C la u s e . II I n P r is on Soc’

y I, th is C o u rt d e c lin e d to re a c h th e m e rits25 of t he par t i es ’ cr os s - appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deron t he part i es ’ C r os s - M ot i ons for Sum m aryJ udgm entbeca us e the Second A m ended Com pl ai nt di d not demonstr at e thatanyof the Pl ai nt i ffs had s t andi ng t o as s ertthei rcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . For t ha tr e a s o n , t h i s Cou r td i s mi s s e d t h e Commo n wea l t h ’ s a p peal w i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce, w i t ho u t r e aching t he m eri t s of t he crossap p ea ls an d instructed the D istri ct C o u rt to “d ev elop the re co rd in o rd e r t o d e te rm in e p la in tif f s ’ s ta n d in g to b ri n g th is a c tio n .” P r is on Soc’

y I, 5 0 8 F .3 d a t 1 6 9

.

A T he B oar d of Par dons ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n perm i t t i ng t he Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyt o pr es ent evidence o n th e i ssue of it s organi zat i on al st and i ng becau se
“ [ t] h is C o u rt ’s p ri o r r u lin g in th is c a s e [ , w h ic h ] d e te rm in e d

. . . t hatPPS , and al l of the otheror gani zat i onal pl ai nt i ffs had fa i l ed t o s how s t andi ng, ” for ecl os ed furt herr evi ew of the i s s ue bythe D i s t r i ctC our t. (A p pel l ant s ’ O peni ng B r . 5. ) B as ed upon the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r eadi ng of thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n P rison S o c’y I, itd e ter m in e d th a t th e in stru c tio n u p o n re m a n d w a s f o r it “to d e v e lo p th e re c o rd a n d d e te r m in e sta n d in g f o r a ll p lain tiff

s in t he curr entcas e, i ncl udi ng the Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci ety . ” P a. P r is on Soc’

y v. C or t és , 2 0 0 9 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 48995 at * 3 8 -3 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e D istric t C o u rt b a se d its c o n c lu sio n u p o n th e f

a c t th a t th is C o u rt “ d id n o t sp e c if yc e rta in i ndi vi dual s orcl as s es of Pl ai nt i ffs ” i n i t s r emand or derw ho sh o u ld b e a ll o w e d to p re se n t ev id e n c e o f th e ir sta n d in g to p re s e n t th e irc la im s to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. Id

. at *3 8

. W e a re26 p e rsu a d e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in c o m p ly in g w ith t hi s C our t ’ s m andat e thati tdet erm i ne the s t andi ng of ea ch p lain tiff b e f o re it co u ld c o n s id e r th e m e rits o f th e ir con st i tuti on al cl ai m s. B T h e B o ard o f P ard o n s also arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed in concl udi ng t hatt he Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyhad or gani zat i onal s t andi ng t o br i ng t hi s s ui t beca us e i t s rul i ng w as b ase d u p o n the e rron eo u s co n clus ion that ind ivid u al m em b ers K e ith S m ith a n d Ja c k ie L e e T h o m p so n h a d sta n d in g to su e in t hei row n r i ght

. T he B oard o f P ar dons ar gues t hatSm i t h and T hom ps o n lacked s t andi ng beca us e they“do nothave l i ve cl ai m s as t hei rabi l i t yt o chal l enge the 1997 amendm ent s i s t i m eb arred

. ” (A p p ell an ts’ R ep ly B r. 8 -9.) “W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew of sta ndi ng . . . i s s ues , butr evi ew forcl earerr orthe fac tual el ement s under l y i ng t he D i s t ri ct C our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of s t andi ng. ” G e n e r a l I n s tr u m e n t C o r

p . v . N u -T e k E le c s . & M f g. , 1 9 7 F

. 3 d 8 3 , 8 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). [ T ]o s a tis f

y A rt ic le II I’ s s ta n d in g re q u ir e m e n ts , a p lai n ti ff m u st sh o w (1) it h as su ff ere d an “inju ry i n fac t ” t hat i s ( a) concr et e and pa rt i cul ar i zed a nd ( b) a c tu a l o r i mmi n e n t , n o t c o n j e c tu r a l or h yp o th e tica l; (2 ) th e in

ju ryis f a ir lytra c e a b le to th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n o f th e d e f e n d a n t; an d (3 ) it i s l i kel y , as oppos ed t o m er el ys pecul at i ve, t hat th e in ju ry w ill b e re d re ss e d b y a f a v o ra b le27 d e c is io n . Friends of

the Earth, I

nc. v. Lai dlaw , 5 2 8 U. S. 1 6 7 , 1 8 0

- 81 ( 2000) ( ci t i ng L ujan v. D ef end ers o f W ild lif e , 504 U

. S. 555, 560- 6 1 (19 9 2) )

. W hen pl ai nt i ffs al l ege a futur e i nj ury , t hat in ju rym u st b e “ c e rta in ly im p e n d in g ,” n o t an in ju ryth a t w ill onl y occur at “s om e i ndefi ni t e futur e t i m e. ” Luj an , 504 U

. S. at 564 n. 2. “‘ [S] om e day ’ i nt ent i ons

— w i t hout anydes cr i pt i on of concr et e pl ans , o r in d eed e ven anys peci fi cat i on of w hen t he s om e dayw i l l be — do nots uppor ta fi ndi ng of the ‘ actual or i m m i nent ’ i nj ur yt hatourcas es r equi r e. ” Id

. a t 5 6 4 . T h is r equi r emen t as s ur es t hat“ther e i s a r eal need t o exer ci s e the pow erof j udi ci al r evi ew i n or dert o pr ot ectthe i nt er es t s of the compl ai ni ng par t y . ” Schl es i ngerv. R es er vis t s C o m m . t o St op the W ar , 4 1 8 U .S . 2 0 8 , 2 2 1 (1 9 7 4 ). [A ] n as s oci at i on has s t andi ng t o br i ng s ui ton b eh alf o f it s m em b e rs w h en ; ( a) it s m em b ers wo u l d o t h e r wi s e h a v e s t a n d i n g t o s u e i n t h e i ro wn r i ght ; ( b) t he i nt er es t s at s t ake ar e germ ane t o t he o rg a n iza tio n ’s p u rp o se , an d (c ) ne ith e r th e c laim asse r t ed northe r el i ef r eques t ed r equi r es the par t i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual m ember s i n t he law su it. H u n t v. W a sh ing ton S tate Ap

p le A dve rtisingC o m m ’n , 43 2 U. S. 333, 343 ( 1977)

. I m por t ant ly , t he or gani zat i on m us t“make s peci fi c a ll eg at i ons es t abl i s hi ng thatatl eas tone i dent i fi ed m emberha[ s] s u ffe r ed orw oul d s uffe rharm . ” Sum m ers v.28 E a rth Isla n d

In st. , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 5 1 (2 0 0 9 ). I n P r is on Soc’

y I, this C o u rtco n clud ed that “the rec o rd [w a] s s i l entaboutt he or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i ffs’ m em ber s and w hethert hos e mem ber s themsel ves m eetthe s tand i ng r equi r ement s t o br i ng t hi s cas e. ” P r i s o n S o c ’y I, 508 F. 3d at 163. U pon r emand, fol l ow i n g m o n t hs of di s coveryand thr ee day s of evi dent i aryhear i ngs , the D i s t r i ct C our tfound that“the e v id e n c e c lea rly s h o w s th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c iety s at i s fi es al l of the r equi r ement s neede d t o qual i fyfort he o rg a n iza tio n a l ex c e p tio n to th e p ro h ib iti o n o n th ird p a rty s t andi ng and m ay pur s ue re l i ef on behal f of i t s m ember s . ” P a. P r is on Soc’

y v. C or t és , 2 0 0 9 U .S . D is t. L E X IS 4 8 9 9 5 a t * 4 3

. A p p ly in g th e tes t f

o r or g a n iza tio n a l sta n d in g se t f o rth in H unt , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe Pennsy lvan i a Pr i s on S o cietyh ad p rese n ted ev iden ce that S m ith an d T h o m p so n w ere bot h m ember s and had both r ece i ved four

- t o- one ( 4- 1) B oar d of Par dons votes i n favorof thei rappl i cat i on fora comm ut at i on a f te r th e 1 9 9 7 A m e n d m e n t to o k e f f e c t. Id

. a t* 4 0

. A c c o r d i n g l y, i tconcl uded t hat T hom ps on and S m i t h had st andi ng t o br i ng a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o t h e 1 9 9 7 Am e n d me n ti n h i s o wn ri g h t. Id

. T he B oar d of Par dons ’ ar gum entthatSm i t h and T hom p so n l acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng t hi s act i on beca us e they fai l ed t o chal l enge th e B oar d of Par dons ’ deni al of thei rpr i or appl i cat i ons w i t hi n t he pre s cr i bed t i m e fr ame forbr i ngi ng s uch c h a lle n g e s is n o t p e rs u a s iv e . (A p p e lla n ts ’ O p e n in g B r. 2 7 -2 8 .)29 T he B oar d of P ar dons has ci t ed no author i t y , and w e have found none, hol di ng t hatan ex pos tf acto chal l enge t o a cons t i tut i onal am end m ent m ust be broug ht w i t hin a gi ven t i m e peri od or el se i ti s for fei t ed. M or eover , t he Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyi s not see k ing d am ag es f

o r pa st i n

juri es. Itis seek ing d ec laratory r el i ef a nd an i nj unct i on. T he Penns y l vani a P ri s on Soci etyhas al l eged that Sm i t h and T hom ps on have s uffe r ed an “inj ury - i nf a c t” d u e to “ im m in e n t” f u tu re h a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e ir c u rre n t an d f

u tu re a p p lica tio n s f

o r c o m m u tatio n s, w h ich is su f f icie n t f o r p u rp o se s o f

d e m o n stra tin g sta n d in g to b rin g th is act i on. Sm i t h t es t i fi ed befor e t he D i s t r i ct C our tt hathe fi l ed an appl i cat i on i n 200 7 t hati s curr ent l y“ata s t ands t i l l beca us e of t he i s s ue her e. T heys ai d .

. . that the y[w er e] notm ovi ng any a p p lic a tio n s u n til . . . th is s itu a tio n i s re s o lv e d .” (J .A . 6 4 2 .) T hom ps on t es t i fi ed thathe i s “w orki ng on” a ne w appl i cat i on fo r co m m u tat ion that h e in ten d s to su b m itas so o n as h e c lears u p a n a d m in istra tiv e o b sta c le p e rta in in g to h is S o c ial S e c u rity num ber

. ( C r os s - A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 33. ) T he B oar d of Par dons has not demonstr at ed t hat T hom ps on and Sm i t h ar e l i kel yt o r ece i ve l es s favor abl e vot es fr om t he B oar d of Par dons t han the four

- t oo n e v o te s theyrec eive d the last t im e the irap p li ca ti o n s w ere r evi ew ed byt he B oar d of Par dons

. Forpurpos es of es t abl i s hi ng th e D istric t C o u rt’s s u b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e ir co m pl ai ntt hatt hei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed, Sm i t h and T hom ps on’ s al l egat i ons w er e s uffi ci ent t o w i t hs t and a d is m is s a l o f

th e irc la im s p u rs u a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )( 1 ). W e agr ee w i t h t h e D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hatthe30 Pe n n sy lva ni a Pr i s on Soci etys at i s fi ed the s econd pr ong of the H u n t t es tforor gani zat i onal s t andi ng beca us e i tpr es ent ed e v id e n c e th a t “ th e in ter e sts th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c iety n o w see k s to asse rtare ce rt ainlyg erm an e to th e P ri so n S o ciety ’s pu rpose, as st at ed in the S econ d A m end ed C om plai nt, [w hich i s]

‘ t o advoca t e fora humane, j us t , an d res t or at i ve corr ect i onal s y s t em, and t o pr om ot e a r at i onal appr oach t o cr i m i nal j us t i ce i s s u e s . ’ ” P a. P r is on Soc’ y v. C or t és , 2 0 0 9 U

. S

. D ist

. L E X IS 4 8 9 9 5 at * 4 3 (cit ing 2 d A m en d C o m p l. ¶ 5 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he co nst i tuti on al i t yof the com m utat i on s process i s an i nter est t hati s “germ ane t o t he or gani zat i on’ s purpos e. ” H unt , 43 2 U. S. at 34 3

. T h e P ri so n S o ciety h as a d v o ca ted f o r P en n sy lvan ia’s p r i s o n e rp o p u l a t i o n s i n c e 1 7 8 7

. ( 2 d Am e n d Co mp l

. ¶ 5

- 9

. ) As th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t ex p lain e d , th e P riso n S o c iety i s conce r ned w i t h pr om ot i ng “a h u m ane, j us t , and r es t or at i ve corr ect i onal s y s t em” and “a r at i onal appr oach t o cr i m i nal j us t i ce i s s ues . ” (Id

. ) Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconclud ed thatt he Pr i s on So cietys at i s fi ed the thi r d pr ong of the H untor gani zat i onal s t andi ng t es tbeca us e “[ n] ei thert he cl ai m as s ert ed [n] or the r el i ef r eques ted [i n t he Second A m ended Com pl ai nt ] r equi r es t he part i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual P ri so n Soci etym ember s i n t he l aw s ui ts i nce thi s s ui t al l eges t hat t he 1997 A m endment s t o t he Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on i m p ac ts ever al l i fe- s ent ence d pr i s oner s i n Penns y l vani a and vi ol at e the E x P os tFacto C l ause of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” P a. P r is on Soc’ y v. C or t és , 2 0 0 9 U

. S

. D is t. L E X IS 4 8 9 9 5 at *9 3

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt31 c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c ie ty “s ati sfi e[d] t he s o- cal l ed ‘ or gani zat i onal exce pt i on’ t o the p roh ibit ion o n thir d p artystan d ing an d that the P ri so n S o ciety ’s sta n d in g to b rin g th is a c tio n o n b e h a lf o f its m e m b e rs is ap p rop ri ate reg ard less o f M r. S m ith an d M r. T h o m p so n ’s at t empt ed i nterve n ti on i n t hi s cas e. ” Id

. at*42. A s an o rg a n iza tio n , the P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c iety is e n tit led to chal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i t yof the 1997 A m endmentand p u rs u e re la te d p ro s p e c tiv e re lie f o n b e h a lf

o f its m e m b e rs . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdid noterri n concl udi ng thatt he P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c ietyh a d o rg a n iza tio n a l sta n d in g to r epr es enti t s m em b ers w ho ar e pr i s oner s s ent ence d t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t. See H

unt , 4 3 2 U

. S

. at 3 4 3 (sett ing fo rth fa ctors a n a ss o c iatio n m u st s h o w to d e m o n stra te th a t it h a s s tan d in g to b ri n g s u it o n b e h a lf

o f its m e m b e rs ). C D ou g l as H ol l i s ar gues i n hi s cr os s - appea l thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n concl udi ng t hathe “l ac k ed s t andi ng beca us e he d id n o t sh o w a lik e lih o o d o f re c e iv in g a m a jo rity v o te i n h is pendi ng pet it i on forcomm ut at i on, al t hough he pos s es s es t he char act eri sti cs o f li fe rs p rev iou sly rec o m m en d ed for comm ut at i on, he pr evi ous l y r ece i ved a maj or i t yvot e, and he ha s a peti t i on pen ding w i t h th e B oard. ” (A pp el l ees/ C ross A p p ell an ts’ B r. at 8.) H o ll is asserts th at th e D istri c t C o u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t h e lac k e d sta n d in g to p a rticip a te in th is a c tio n is i r r econc i l abl e w i t h i t s hol ding t hatSm i t h and Thom ps on had32 d e m o n s tr a te d s ta n d in g to s u e in th e iro w n ri g h t. Id . H o lli s ar gues t hatbeca us e he, l i ke Sm i t h and Thom ps on , r ece i ved a f a v o ra b le f

o u r-to -o n e m a

jo rityv o te b yth e B o a rd o f P a rd o n s in a pas tappl ic at i on forcomm ut at i on, and he ha s a pendi ng appl i cat i on for comm ut at i on, he has s how n an i nj ury - i n- fac tdue t o i m m i nent futur e harm s uffi ci ent t o s ue i n hi s ow n r i ght

. T he B o a rd o f P a rd o n s m a in tain s th a t th e D istric t C o u r t b a se d its rul i ng on fi ndi ngs of fa ct t hatw er e s uppor t ed bythe evi dence , an d thu s sh o u ld n o t be d istu rbe d b ythis C o u rtu n less theyare clea rl yerro n eo u s. (A p p ell an ts’ R ep lyB r. 1 8

. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatH ol l i s h ad not d e m o n stra ted th a t h e w a s “ lik e lyto re c e iv e a m a jo rityv o te in favorof r evi ew on t he appl i cat i on curr ent l ypendi ng befor e the B oar d of Par dons

. ” P a. P r is on Soc’ y v. C or t és , 2 0 0 9 U .S . D ist. L E X I S 48995 at*30. T hi s conclusion w as bas ed upon the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thati n H ol l i s ’ s m os t r ece ntappl i cat i on, f iled in 1 9 9 4 , h e re c e iv e d a n u n f a v o ra b le o n e -to -f

o u r v o te a g a in s t r e c o m m e n d a ti o n t o th e G o v e rn o r. Id

. at*24, 30. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappea r s t o have r ej ect ed H ol l i s ’ s expl anat i on that t he reason h e recei ved a on e-t o-fou r vot e w as becau se hi s hear i ng w as hel d i m m edi at el y i n t he aft erm ath of t he emot i onal l ychar ged atm os p h ere of the N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 4 G u b e rn a to ria l ele c tio n , w h e re in L i eut enantG overnorSi ngel had l os tt o G overnor R i dge, i n par t bas ed upon S ing el’s r ecomm endat i on t o comm ut e t he l i fe s ent ence of R egi nal d M cFadden, w ho turned ar ound and33 com m i t t ed a m urder and rape in N e w Y ork l ess th a n a y e a r a f

ter h e g o t o u t. Id

. at*25. T he B oar d of Par dons ar gues t hat , b ase d u p on t he t r end deve l oped i n t he s t at i s t i cal evi dence pr es ent ed conc erni ng the hi s t or yof r ecomm ended c om m ut at i ons , H ol l i s w oul d not have r ece i ved a r ecomm endat i on forcomm ut at i on beca us e the tr e n d d id n o t f

a v o r th e e x e rc is e o f c le m e n c yin H o llis ’ c a s e . Id

. at27 -31. T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed that“bo t h M r. H oll i s’ p ers onal comm ut at i on appl i cat i on hi s t ory , al ong w i t h t he gene ral comm ut at i ons r evi ew ‘ tr ends ’ i dent i fi ed byt he D e f e n d a n ts, sh o w th a t th e in ju ry c laim e d b yM r. H o lli s is , at th is t i m e, s pecul at i ve. ” Id

. at*30- 31. H o ll is arg u es i n h is cro ss-ap p ea l that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s rul i ng , and t his C ou rt ’s earl i er i nst ruct i on t h a ta plai nti ff m ust s how t hat he i s “l i kel y t o r ece i ve a m aj or i t yof vot es favor i ng a co m m ut at i on r ecomm endat i on fr om t he B oar d, ” Pa

. Pr is on Soci et y I, 5 0 8 F

. 3 d a t1 6 5 , i s i nc on s i s t e n twi t h th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s hol di ngs i n Su m m ers v. E a rth Is l an d Inst ., 1 2 9 S . C t. 1142 ( 2009) , and A dar and C ons tr uctors v. P ena , 515 U

. S. 200 (1995 ). (C ross -A pp el l ants ’ B r. 75 -78. ) H oll i s argues that these cas es s t and fort he pr opos i t i on thati ti s unnece s s aryt o s how the actual out come of futur e conduct t o es t abl i s h s t andi ng, i

. e. , that th e life rs h e re a re n o t re q u ir e d to sh o w th a t th e yw o u ld a g a in r ece i ve a f

avor abl e four

- t o- one B oar d vot e r ecomm endi ng c o m m u ta tio n to h a v e s ta n d in g . (Id

. ) R ather , H ol l i s cont ends t hat“the l i fer s her e must[onl y ] d em o n st r at e thatt heyhave defi ni t e pl ans to a ppl yforcomm ut at i on i n the nea rfutur e or34 have a n appl i cat i on curr ent l ypendi ng. ” (Id

. at 78

. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatH ol l i s had al l eged onl y“a p o ten tial in

ju ry , h a p p e n in g o n so m e in d e ter m in a te f u tu re d a te [that ] i s nei t herconcr et e norpart i cul ar i zed nori m m i nent , and [ t h u s ] d o e s n o ts a t i s f

yth e ‘ i r r e d u c i b l e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l mi n i mu m’ of s t andi ng es t abl i s hed byA r t i cl e I I I

. ” P a . P r is on Soc’ y v. C or t és , 2009 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 48995 at*30 ( quot i ng B e n n e tt v. Spear , 5 2 0 U .S . 1 5 4 , 1 6 7 (1 9 9 7 )). “ [ A ] f in d in g is ‘c lea rly err oneous ’ w hen al t hough t her e i s evi d ence t o s uppor ti t , t he review i ng cou rton t he en t i re evi den ce i s l eftw i t h the definite a n d f ir m c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d .” A n d e rs o n v . B e ss e m e r C ity , 470 U

. S. 564, 573 ( 1985) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni t ed Stat es G

yps um C o. , 3 3 3 U. S. 3 6 4 , 3 95 (1 9 48 )) (i nternal quotat i on s om i t t ed). “T his st and ard pl ain ly does n o t e n t i t l e a r e v i e wi n g c o u r t t o r e v e r s e t h e f i n d i n g o f t he t r i erof fa cts i m p ly b ec au se i ti s convi nced thati tw oul d have deci ded the ca s e di ffe r ent l y . ” A nders on, 4 7 0 U

. S

. at 57 3

. “In appl y i ng t he cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d to the fi ndi ngs of a district courtsi t t i ng w i t ho ut a j ury , app el l at e cou rt s m ust cons t ant l yhave i n m i n d t hatt hei rfunct i on i s nott o deci de factual i ssues de novo

. ” Zeni th R adi o C or p. v. H az el t i ne R es ear ch, I

nc. , 395 U

. S. 100, 123 ( 1969)

. T he C our texpl ai ned i n A nders on : If th e d istric t co u rt’s a c c o u n t o f th e e v id e n c e is p lau sib le in li g h t o f

th e re c o rd v iew e d in its e n tirety , the c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls m a yn o t r e v e rse it even though convi nced t hathad i tbeen s i t t i ng as35 t he tr i erof fa ct , i tw oul d have w ei ghed the e v i d e n c e d i f

f e r e n t l y . Wh e r e th e r e a r e two p erm issi b le view s o f th e evi dence , th e f ac tfi n d er’s cho i ce betw een them cann ot be cl earl yerr on eou s. Id

. ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Y

el l ow C a b C o. , 338 U

. S. 338, 342 (1 9 4 9 )). W e a re p e rsu a d e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t cle a rly e r r in f in d in g th a t H o lli s la c k e d in d iv id u a l sta n d in g to par t i ci pat e i n t hi s act i on. W e al s o not e t hat H ol l i s i s a mem ber o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c iety a n d th a t h is in ter e sts a re d u ly r epr es ent ed byt he Pr i s on Soci ety , notw i t hs t andi ng the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s ru lin g th a t h e la c k e d in d iv id u a l s ta n d in g . D K ei th Sm ith an d Jac k ie L ee T h o m p so n cro ss-ap p ea l fr om th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ial o f th e ir m o tio n to in ter v e n e in th is ac ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n stru ed S m ith an d T h o m p so n ’s m ot i on t o i nt ervene a s a m ot i on for perm i s s i ve i nt ervent i on and d e n ied it b a se d u p o n th e d isc re tio n p ro v id e d to d istric t co u rts p u rs u a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 4 (b ). P a. P r is on Soc’ y v. C or t és , 2009 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 48995 at *45- 48. Sm i t h and Thom ps on ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ct C our t s houl d have cons t rued the mot i on a s a r e qu e s tt o i nt e r ve ne a s of r i gh t ba s e d u po n Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 2 4 (a ). W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s ru lin g o n a m o tio n to in te rv e n e f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . K l eis s l erv. U ni t ed Stat es For es tSer v. , 1 5 7 F .3 d 9 6 4 , 9 6 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). T h is C o u rt w ill rev erse su ch a m att er o n lyif w e c o n c lu d e tha t th e tri al “c o u rt h as ab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yap p ly ing an im p rop er leg al st an d ard36 orr eac hi ng a conc l us i on w e ar e conf i denti s i ncorr ect
. ” Id

. R u le 24 (a ) o f th e F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re pr ovi des t hat , “[o] n t i m el ym ot i on, t he courtm us tperm i tany one to in ter v e n e w h o : (1 ) is g iv e n a n u n c o n d iti o n a l rig h t to i nt ervene bya fe der al s t atut e; o r (2 ) cl ai m s an i nt er es tr el at i ng t o t he pr oper t yort r ans ac ti o n tha ti s the s ubj ectof the ac t i on, and i s s o s i tuat ed thatdi s pos i ng of the act i on m ay as a pr act i cal m a tter im p a ir o r im p e d e th e m o v a n t’s a b ili tyto p ro tec t it s i nt er es t , unl es s exi s t i ng par t i es adequa t el yr epr es entthat in ter e st.” F e d

. R

. C iv

. P

. 2 4 (a ). R u le 2 4 (b ) pr o v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt th a t “ [ o ]n tim e lym o tio n , the c o u rt m a yp e rm it a n y o n e to in ter v e n e w h o : (A ) is g iv e n a c o n d iti o n a l rig h t to i nt ervene bya feder al s t atut e; or ( B ) has a cl ai m ordefe ns e that s h a re s w ith th e m a in a c tio n a c o m m o n q u e s tio n o f la w o r f a c t.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 4 (b ). F u rth e rm o re , “ [ i] n e x e rc isin g its d isc re tio n , the c o u rt m u st c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e in ter v e n tio n w ill undul y d elay orpr ej udi ce the adj udi cat i on of the or i gi nal par t i es ’ r i ght s . ” Id

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded (1) tha t the interests of M r. S m ith an d M r. T hom ps on ar e ade quat el yr epres ent ed byt he P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c ietya n d (2 ) th a t th e ir i nt ervent i on i nt o t hi s cas e, aft ert hi s C our t ’ s gr ant of sum m ary j ud gm ent and t he C ou rt of A pp eal s’ r emand, w oul d be pur el ys uper fl uous and add u n n e c e ss a ryc o m p lex iti e s th a t co u ld p o te n tially37 caus e undue de l ayi n t he r es ol ut i on of thi s cas e. P a. P r is on Soc’

y v. C or t és , 2009 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X IS 48995 at *48. T he D i s t r i ct C our t fur t her found t hat t her e w as no evi dence t hatt he Penns y l vani a Pr i s o n Soci etyhad notbeen d ilig e n t in p ro s e c u tin g th is a c tio n o n b e h a lf o f its m e m b e rs . Id

. at*47. N one of the ar gum ent s pr oferr ed by S m ith and T h o m p so n in th e ir c ro ss -a p p e a l d e m o n stra tes th a t th e ir in ter e sts h a v e n o t b e e n a d e q u a telyre p r e se n ted b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia Pr i s on Soci ety . T he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not abus e it s d is cr et i on in d e n y in g S m ith a n d T h o m p s o n ’s m o tio n to in te rv e n e . A ccor di ngl y , bas ed upon i t s concl us i on t hatthe Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyhad s ta ndi ng t o br i ng t hi s act i on, t he Di s t r i c tCou r tp r o p e r l y“ a s s u me [ d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i de w h e th e r th e a lleg a tio n s [ in th e se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t] sta te a ca us e of a ct i on on w hi ch the courtcan gr antr el i ef a s w el l as to d e ter m in e iss u e s o f f a c t ar isin g in th e c o n tro v e rsy” w ith resp ec t t o P lai n ti ff

s’ ex pos tf

acto c la im

. B el lv. H

ood , 32 7 U. S. 6 7 8 , 6 8 2 (1 9 4 6 ). III T he B o a r d o f Pa r d o n s a r g u e s i n t h i s a p p e a l , a s d i d t he C om m onw eal t h i n P r is on Soc’ y I, thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Pr i s on Soci etybeca us e “the chang es t o Penns y l vani a par dons pr ocedur es m ade by t he 1997 const i tut i onal amendm ent s di d not t rul yi m pl i cat e the E

x P o st Fa c to C la u s e .” (A p p e lla n ts ’ B r. 2 9 .) Itm ai ntai ns t hat t his C ou rt shou l d “reverse [the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s ]38 ru li n g s a n d

. . . rem a n d th is c a se to th e d istric t co u rt w ith d ire c tio n s e ith e r t o d is m is s th is m a tter o r to e n ter ju d g m e n t in t hei rfavor , as m aybe appr opr i at e gi ven the r es ol ut i on o f t he l egal i s s ues . ” (Id . at 4 .) In u rg in g th is C o u rt to re m a n d th is m at t erw i t h di r ect i ons t hati t be di s m i s s ed, t he B oar d of Par dons ar gues t hat“[t ] he di s t r i ctcourtm i s appr ehende d cr i t i cal char act er i s t i cs of co m m u tat ion s/pa rdo n s in P en n sy lvan ia, w h i ch compel t he conc l us i on thatt he 1997 cha ng es to vot i ng pr ocedur es do notfi tt he def i ni t i on of “ ex p o st fa c to
. ” (Id

. a t 5 .) W e ar e per s uaded thatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed as a mat t er of law i n d eny i ng t he C om m on w eal t h’s m o tion t o d i sm i ss P lai n ti ff s’ ex pos tf

acto c l a i m pur s ua ntt o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) beca us e the Pr i s on Soci etyhas not stated a vi abl e ex pos tf act o c la im

. “T o su rv iv e a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, a com plai nt m ust cont ai n s uffi cien tfac tual m att er , acc ept ed as t rue, t o ‘ s t at e a cl ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ’ ” A s hcr of tv. I qbal , 129 S. C t
. 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( quot i ng B el l A t l

. C o rp . v. T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U .S . 5 4 4 , 5 7 0 (2 0 0 7 )). In d e c id in g a m o tio n to di s m i s s , a court m us t det erm i ne w hether t he com pl ai nt“pl eads f actual cont ent that al l ow s the co urtt o d raw t he rea so n a b le i nfer enc e t hatt he def endanti s l i abl e fort he mi s conduct al l eged. ” Id

. “W hi l e legal concl us i ons can pr ovi de the fr amew or k of a c om pl ai nt , theym u st be s uppor t ed byfac tual al l egat i ons . ” Id . a t 1 9 5 0

. Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege i n the Second A m ended Com pl ai ntt hat39 “[t ] he cha nges i n t he par dons pr oces s ef fec tuat ed byt he A me n d me n ti mpo s e a d d i t i o n a l p u n i s h me n to n th e Pr i s oner P lain tiff s sin c e th e re is d istin c tlyles s o f a n o p p o rtu n ityto o b tain a par don orcomm ut at i on. ” ( 2d A m end C om pl

. ¶ 44. ) Pl ai nt i ffs a lso a lleg e th a t “ [ p ]rio r to th e A m e n d m e n t, i t w a s d istin c tly m or e l i kel yt hatt he Pr i s oner Pl ai nt i ffs coul d obt ai n a par don or comm ut at i on. H ow ever , s i nce the A m endmentbeca m e l aw , t he P ri s o n e r P la in tif

f s a re v ir tu a lly s h u t o u t f ro m th a t o p p o rt u n ity.” (2 d A m e n d C o m p l. ¶ 6 5 .) T h e se a lleg a tio n s fa il t o sta te a v iab le cl ai m as a mat t erof l aw beca us e the l egal conclusi on thatt he “A m endmen ti mpo s e [ s ] a d d i t i o n a l puni s hm ent ” i s nots uppor t ed byanyof the fa ctual al l egat i ons in the S econd A m ended C om pl ai nt
. T he 1997 A m endmen t d o es notl engthen the s ent ence s i m pos ed upon the pr i s oner s r epre s ent ed byt he Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci ety , w ho have been s ent ence d t o s erve a te rm o f lif e im p ri s o n m e n t w ith o u t p a ro le

. “Ther e i s no ex pos tf acto vi ol at i on w her e the retroac ti v ely ap p li ed law d o es no t m ak e o n e’s p u n ishm en t m o re bur dens om e, butm er el ycr eat es a di s advant age. ” Spuck v

. R i dge , 347 F. A pp’ x 72 7 , 7 2 9 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( aff i r m i ng the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of ex p o s tf a c tc l a i m w h ere p lai n ti ff ’s s ent ence w as notl engthened orm ade mor e s ever e byt he new g u id e lin e s w h ich m a d e f u rlo u g h o p p o rtu n iti e s u n a v a ilab le beca us e thatdi d notm ake the puni s hm entm or e oner ous ) ( ci t i ng H am een v. D el aw are , 2 1 2 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ))

. W h i l e t h e Di s tr i c tCou r tc o r r e c t l yd e t e r mi n e d t h a tthe P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c iety h a d sta n d in g to b rin g th is a c tio n , inI n P r is on Soc’ y I , t hi s C our t di d notr eac h t he mer i t s of the 8 C o m m o n w e a lth ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in den y i ng i t s R ule 12(b)( 6) m oti on , and i n g rant i ng the P l ai nti ffs’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entforvi ol at i on of the E x P o st Fa c to C l aus e, beca us e the Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence of a s i gni fi canti nj ur yt o s at i s fyt he j ur i s di cti o n al r equi r ementof d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a c a s e o rc o n t r o v e r s y. 40 rul i ng on t he C om m on w eal t h’s R ule 12 (b) (6) m oti on t o d i sm i ss, it err o n e o u slyc o n c lu d e d th a t P la in tiff s h a d a lleg e d f

a c ts su f f icie n t to d e m o n stra te th a t th e 1 9 9 7 A m e n d m e n t co u ld re su lt i n a l ongerper i od of i ncarce r at i on fori nm at es s ent ence d pr i or t o i t s ado pti on . (M em . O rder D en. D efs. ’ M ot. t o D ism iss , M arch 6, 20 03 , at11 -12. ) For th is sa m e reas on , w e m ustal so re v e rse th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r gr a n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f t h e P e n n s yl v a n i a P r i s o n S o c i e t y. A s th e C o m m o n w e a lt h h a s a rg u e d th ro u g h o u t th is li ti g ati o n , there are three d ist inct rea so n s w h yP lai n ti ff s’ ex po st fa c to cl ai m i s notvi abl e. Fi r s t , t he 1997 A m endment i s notan 8 ex pos tf act o l aw “[g] i ven the ad hoc natur e of [ ex ec ut i ve] c lem e n c y , th e re tro a c tiv e a p p lica tio n o f th e a m e n d m e n t ca n n o t, as a mat t erof l aw , have a ny w i des pr ead eff ect on the per i od of in c a rc e ra tio n f

o r p ri s o n e rs s e rv in g lif

e s e n te n c e s . . . .” (D e f

s .’ R epl yi n Supp. of T h eir M ot
. t o D i s m i s s 9 ( quot i ng Sol em v. He lm , 463 U

. S. 277, 300- 301 ( 1983) ( ci t i ng C onnect i cut B d. of P ar dons v. D um s chat , 4 5 2 U

. S

. 4 5 8 (19 8 1 ). ) S econ d, “[P ]l ai nti ffs cannot s how t hatt he pas s age of t he41 A m endmenthas r es ul t ed or w il l resul ti n a l ongerper i od of i ncar cer at i on forl i fe s ent ence d p ri s oner s ” bec aus e a l i fe se n ten c e , ab se n t th e e x e c u tiv e g ra n t o f a c o m m u tatio n , is still a life se n ten c e a n d n o th in g m o re . (D e f s.’ M e m . in S u p p . o f

T h e ir M o t. f o r S u m m . J. 2 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o A pp el l ants ’ Op. Br

. 3 1 ( c i t i ng C om m onw eal th v. Sz cz es ni ew s ki , 591 A

. 2d 1055, 1056 ( Pa. Super

. 1991) ( hol di ng t hati n Penns y l vani a a t erm o f li fe i m pr i s onm enti s no l es s t han and no mor e than natur al l i fe) ) ; 61 P. S § 331. 21( a) ( Par ol e i s not a pos s i bi l i t yfor l i fe- ordeath- s ent ence d pr i s oner s )

. ) T he adopt i on of the 1997 A m endmentdi d noti ncrease t he puni s hm ent
. A t erm of l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t is n o le s s th a n a n d n o m o re th a n n a tu ra l lif e . T hi r d, t he 1997 A m endmentdoes nottr i ggeran ex po st fa c to i n q u i r yb e c a u s e c h a n g e s i n t h e l a w t h a ta l t e rp r o c e d ur es f o r o b tain in g c o m m u tatio n , b u t d o n o t elim in a te th e p o ss ib ili ty o f c o m m u tatio n , are p ro c e d u ra l an d th u s n o t ex pos tf acto l aw s. ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 11, 29 ( ci t i ng A r tw ay v. A t t or ney G en. of N

. J. , 8 1 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 5 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 )). ) W e w i l l fi r s taddr ess the r equi r ement s fortr i gger i ng an ex p o st fa c to i nqui r yw hen cha l l engi ng a l aw that i s vi ol at i ve of t he E x Post Fact o C lau se . W e w ill th e n a d d re ss th e a rg u m e n ts co n ce rnin g th e d ef

ici en cies in P lai n ti ff

s’ ex pos tf

acto c laim r ai s ed byt he C om m onw ea lt h i n i t s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and befor e thi s C our ti n P r is on Soc’ y I, and bythe B oar d of Par dons in th e in sta n t ap p e a l. A42 Th e Ex P o st Fa c to Cl a us e of t he Cons t i tut i on , U

. S. C ons t
. ar t
. I §§ 9 and 10, forbi ds t he governm entfr om pas s i ng any l aw “w hi ch i m pos es a puni s hm entforan ac tw hi ch w as not puni s habl e att he t i m e i t w as comm i t t ed; ori m pos es addi t i onal puni s hm entt o that then pr es cr i bed. ” W eave r , 450 U

. S. 24, 28 ( 1981) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed)

. T he E x P os tFacto C l ause i s i nt ended t o pr ovi de fa i rw arni ng aboutnew puni s hm ent s and to d is c o u ra g e a rb itr a ry a n d o p p re s s iv e le g is la tio n . W eave r , 450 U

. S. at28. T o fal l w i t hi n t he ex p o st f acto p r o h i b i t i o n , “ t wo cr i t i cal el ement s m us t be pr es ent
. . . : i t m us tbe r etr os pect i ve, th a t is, itm u st a p p lyto e v e n ts o c c u rrin g b e f o re its e n a c tm e n t, and i t m us t di s advant age the off enderaff ect ed byi t
. ” Id

. at29 (f o o tn o te s o m itte d ). I n Li nds ey v. W

as hi ngt on , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned t hat , i n r evi ew i ng a cl ai m of an ex p o st fa c to vi ol at i on, the foc us is o n th e “ e f

f e c t” o f th e n e w la w . L in d s e y , 3 0 1 U

. S

. at 4 0 0

. In Li nds ey , a tt h e t i m e p e t i t i o n e r s w e r e c o n v i c t e d o f g r a n d l a r c e n y, that crim e w as p u n isha b le bya m ax im u m sen tenc e o f “ n o t m o re t han fi ft een y ear s , ” and a m i ni m um s ent ence t o be fi xed byt he cour ti n i t s di s cr et i on at s om e poi ntbetw een s i x m ont hs and fi ve y e a rs , a f te r w h ic h tim e p e titio n e rs w e re e lig ib le f o r p a ro le

. Id

. A fter p eti ti o n ers co m m itted th eir of fe n se, bu t bef

o re the yw ere sen tenc ed, W as hi ngt on enac t ed a ne w s t at e l aw t hatm ade the m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e p r o v i d e d b yl a w m an da t ory , for tho se f e lo n i e s c a rr y in g m a x im u m s e n te n c e s . Id

. P eti ti o n ers chal l enged the new l aw i n sta t e court
. T he Supr eme C our tof W a s h in g to n s u s ta in e d th e s e n te n c e . Id

. a t3 9 9. Th e S u p r e me43 C o u rt re v e rse d . It h e ld a s f o llo w s: [T]he Supr eme C our tof W ashi ngt on, w i t hout anal y s i s or compar i s on of the pr act i cal oper at i on o f t h e [ n e w a n d o l d ] s t a tu t e s , [ u p h e l d th e l a w, decl ar i ng t hat ] “ [t] he amendi ng act[di d] not chan g e ori nfl i cta gr eat erpuni s hm entt han the l aw i n for ce w hen the al l eged c r i m e w as c o m m itt e d [ ,] f

o r th e c o u rt c o u ld u n d e r th e law in for ce a tt hatt i m e pr onounce a m axi m um s ent ence of notm or e than fi ft een y ear s . T he mi ni m um and m ax im u m p u n ishm en ts rem ain the sam e as b ef o re th e e n a c tm e n t o f

th e a c t o f

1 9 3 5 .” Id

. at399- 400. T he C our texpl ai ned that“[t ] he effectof the new s t atut e i s t o m ake m an d at oryw hatw as befor e onl ythe m axi m um s ent ence . ” Id

. at 400. T he C our tr eas oned as foll ow s: R em ov al of the po ss ib i l i t yof a sen t ence o f l ess t han fi ft een y ear s . . . oper at es t o [the] det r i m ent [of pet i t i oner s ] i n t he s ens e t hat t he s t an d ard of p u n ishm en t ad o p ted b ythe n ew statu te i s m o re oner ous t han thatof the ol d. I tcoul d h ar dl ybe t houghtt hat , i f a puni s hm entform ur derof l i fe i m pri sonm ent ordeath w ere chang ed to dea th a lo n e , the latte r p e n a ltyc o u ld b e a p p lie d to h o m icid e c o m m itt e d b e f o re th e c h a n g e . Y e t th is i s onl y a m or e s t r i ki ng i ns t ance of the detr i m ent44 w h ich e n s u e s f

ro m th e re v isio n o f

a sta tu te pr o v i di ng fora maxi m um and mi ni m um p u n is h m e n t b ym a k i n g th e m a x i m u m c o m p u l s o r y.

. . . I ti s pl ai nl yt o the s ubs t ant i al di s advant age of p e titio n e rs to b e d e p riv e d o f a ll o p p o rtu n ityto r ece i ve a s ent ence w hi ch w oul d gi ve them fre edom from cus t odyand contr ol pr i ort o the e x p ir a tio n o f

th e f if te e n -ye a r t e rm . Id

. at 40 1 -02 (cit ati o n o m itted). I n W eaver , the S u p re m e C o u rt sim ilarlyh e ld th a t a Fl or i da l aw w hi ch, “[o] n i t s fac e, r educe [d] the num berof m ont hl ygai n- t i m e cr edi t s avai l abl e t o an i nm at e w ho abi des by p ri s o n ru le s a n d a d e q u a te ly p e rf o rm s h is a s s ig n e d ta s k s ,” vi ol at ed the E

x P o st Fa c to C lau se b e c a u se “ [ b ]yd e f in iti o n , this r educt i on i n gai n- t i m e ac cumul at i on leng t hens t he per i od that s om eone i n pet i t i oner ’ s pos i t i on m us t s pend i n pr i s on. ” W eave r , 450 U

. S. at 31. T he C our tnot ed that“a pr i s oner ’ s el i gi bi l i t yfor re d u c e d im p riso n m e n t is a sig n if ica n t f a c to r e n ter in g in to b o th the d ef en d an t’ s d ec is io n to p lea b arg ain a n d the ju d g e’s c a l c u l a t i o n o f

t h e s e n t e n c e t o b e i mpo s e d

. ” Id

. at32 ( ci t i ng W o lff v . M cD o n n e ll , 4 1 8 U

. S

. 5 3 9 , 5 5 7 (1 9 7 4 )) . T h e C o u rt exp l ai ned i t s conclusi on as fol l ow s: C r i t i cal t o r el i ef underthe E x Post Facto C l ause i s not an i ndi vi dual ’ s r i ghtt o l es s puni s hm ent , but t he l ack of fai rnot i ce a nd governm ent al r es t r ai nt w hen the l eg isl ature incre ase s p u n ishm en t bey ond45 w hatw as pr es cr i bed w hen the cr i m e w as c o n su m m a ted . T h u s, e v e n if a sta tu te m e re ly al t er s penal p rov i s i ons acc or ded byt he gr ace of th e leg isla tu re , it v io late s the C lau se if it is b o th re tro sp e c ti v e a n d m o re o n e ro u s th a n th e law in eff ecton t he dat e of the off ens e. Id

. at30- 31. C i t i ng L in d s e y , t h e Cou r t c o n c l u d e d t hat t he pet i t i oneri n Wea ver “[ w as ] s i m i l ar l ydi s advant aged byt he r educe d oppor tuni t y t o s hor t en hi s t i m e i n pr i s on s i m pl yt hr ough good conduct

. ” Id . a t 3 3 -3 4

. C onver s el y , i n D obber tv. F l or i da , the S u p re m e C o u rt r evi ew ed a “ new s t atut e . . . [that ] al t er ed t he m ethods empl oy ed in d e te rm i n in g w h e th e r t h e d e a th p e n a lty w a s to b e im p o s e d ,” and conc l uded thatt her e w as no ex pos tf acto viol at i on becau se t hough t he cha l l enged pr ovi s i ons cha nged the r ol e of j uryand j udge i n s ent enci ng, t heydi d notadd t o the “qua ntum of puni s hm ent
. ” D obber t v. F l or i da , 4 3 2 U

. S

. 2 8 2 , 2 9 3 -94 (19 7 7 ). “[E] ven i f a law oper at es t o t he def endant ’ s detr i m ent , the ex pos tf act o pr ohi bi t i on does notr es t r i ct‘ l egi s l at i v e co n tr ol of r emedi es and m odes of pr ocedur e w hi ch do notaff ectm at t er s of s ubs t ance . ’ ” Mi l l erv. F l or i da , 482 U

. S

. 4 23, 433 ( 1987) ( quot i ng D ob bert , 4 3 2 U. S. a t 2 9 3 )

. “ Hen ce, no ex p o st fa c to vi ol at i on occur s i f the cha nge in the l aw i s m er el ypr ocedur al and does ‘ noti ncr eas e the puni s hm ent , norch an g e t he in g re d ien ts o f

th e o f f e n [ s]e o r th e u lti m a te f a c ts n e c e ss a ryto es t abl i s h gui l t
. ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng H optv. Utah , 110 U

. S. 574, 590 (1 88 4) )

. “ O n t he othe r ha nd , a c ha ng e i n t he l a w t ha t a l t ers aM or al es w as convi ct ed of m ur der i ng hi s w i fe w hi l e he w as 9 outon par ol e forhavi ng comm i t t ed a pr i or m ur der

. U nderthe law in p lace at th e ti m e h e c o m m itted h is seco n d m u rde r, M or al es w oul d have been ent i t l ed t o par ol e s ui t abi l i t yhear i ngs o n a n a n n u a l b a s is

. Mor al es , 5 1 4 U

. S

. at 5 0 3 (cit ati o n o m itted). A fter h is seco n d m u rde r co n v ict ion , the C ali fo rnia L eg isl ature author i zed the C al i forni a B oar d of P ri s on T erm s t o defe r s ubs eque n t su i t abi l i t yhear i ngs forup t o t hr ee y ear s i f the pr i s onerhas bee n convi ct ed of “ ‘ m or e than one of fens e w hi ch i nvol ves t he t aki ng of a l i fe’ and i f the B oar d ‘ fi nds thati ti s not r eas onabl e t o ex p ectthatpar ol e w oul d be gr ant ed ata hea r i ng d u ri n g the f

o ll o w ing y ea rs a n d stat es the b ase s fo r th e f ind ing

. ’” Id

. (qu o ti n g C al. P en al C o d e A n n . § 3 0 4 1

. 5 (b)(2 ) (W est 1 9 8 2 )). 46 s ubs t ant i al r i ghtcan be ex pos tf acto ‘even i f t he st atute t akes a s eemi ngl ypr ocedur al form . ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng W eave r , 450 U

. S. , at 2 9 , n . 1 2 ). 

### In Cal

. Dep ’ to

f Cor r . v . Mo r a l es , th e S u p rem e C o u rt cons i der ed w hether a l aw changi ng t he pr ocedur es conce r ni ng t he ac ces s i bi l i t yof p aro le s ui t abi l i t yhear i ngs vi ol at ed the Ex Po s tFa c t or C l a u s e . C al

. D ep’ tof C or r . v. Mor al es , 51 4 U. S. 499 ( 1995)

. M or al es fi l ed a fede r al habea s corpus pet i t i on as s er t i ng t hatan amendm entt o C al i forni a’ s parol e pr ocedur es t hat al l ow ed the C al i forni a B oard of P ri son T erm s t o d ecrease th e f re q u e n c yo f

p a ro le s u itab ili tyh e a rin g s u n d e r c e rta in ci r cumst ance s cons t i tut ed an ex p o st fa c to l aw b arr ed bythe U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tuti on. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the 9 p eti ti o n . T h e N inth C ir cu itC o u rt o f A p p ea ls r ev erse d , h o w ev er,47 ho l ding t hat the retrospect i ve law m ade a p arol e heari ng l ess a c c e ss ib le to re sp o n d e n t an d th u s e f f e c tiv e lyin c re a se d h is s ent ence i n vi ol at i on of the E x Post Facto C l aus e. T he C al i forni a D epartm en t of C orr ect i ons fi l ed a pe t i t i on for cert i orari befor e the Supr eme C our t , and i tw as gr ant ed. M or al es ar g u ed befor e the C our tthatthe new l aw incr eas ed the puni s hm entat t ache d t o hi s cr i m e bec aus e, under Li nds ey , Mi l l er , and W

eave r , “a l egi s l atur e maynots t i ffe n t he

‘ s t andar d of puni s hm ent ’ appl i cabl e t o cr i m es thathave a l r eady b e e n c o m m itte d .” Mor al es , 5 1 4 U

. S

. at 50 5 (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he Supr eme C our t di s agr eed. I thel d thatt he new l aw di d not vi ol at e the E

x Post Facto C l aus e bec aus e t he foc us of the ex pos tf acto i nqui r yi s noton wh e t h e ra l e g i s l a t i v e c ha n g e p r o d u c e s s o me ambi guous s or tof ‘ di s advant age, ’ n or. . . on w h ethe r a n am en d m en t aff ec ts a p ri so n er’s

‘ oppor tuni t yt o t ake a dvant age of pr ovi s i ons for ear l yr el eas e, ’ buton w hetheranys uch cha nge al t er s t he def

i n it ion of cr i m i nal conductor i ncreases t he penalty by w hich a cri m e is puni s habl e. I d. at499, 506 n. 3 (cit at i on om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added)

. T he C our tdi s t i ngui s hed Lindsey , Mi l l er , and W eave r , expl ai ni ng th a t: B o th befo re and afterthe [n ew l aw ], C al i forn ia puni s hed the off

ens e of s econd- degr ee m u r der48 w i t h an i ndet erm i nat e s ent ence of “c onfi nem ent in th e s ta te p ri s o n f

o r a te rm o f 1 5 ye a rs to lif e .” T he amendm ent al s o l eftunchange d t he su b sta n tiv e f

o rm u la f o r securin g a n yre d u c tio n s to this sen tenc ing ran g e. T h u s , alth o u g h 1 5 y ea rs w a s th e f o rm a l “m in im u m ” ter m o f c o n f in e m e n t, re sp o n d e n t w a s a b le to se c u re a o n e -th ird “ c re d it” o r re d u c tio n in th is m in im u m b y c o m p ly in g w ith pr i s on rul es and r egul at i ons . T he amendm enthad n o ef fe ct on the s ta n d ard s fo r fixing a p ri so n er’s i ni t i al dat e of “ el i gi bi l i t y ” for par ol e, orfor det erm i ni ng hi s “s ui t abi l i t y ” fo rp a r o l e a nd s ett i ng hi s r el eas e dat e. I d. at 5 0 7 (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e C o u rt also rejected M o rales’s ar gum entt hat“the E

x P o st Fa c to C l aus e forbi ds anyl egi s l at i ve ch an g e tha t has an yco n ce ivab le ri sk o f a ff ec ti n g a p ri so n er’s puni s hm ent
. . . [w her e] t her e i s ‘ no pr i nci pl ed w ayt o det erm i ne how s i gni fi canta r i s k of enha nced c onfi nementi s t o be t ol er at ed. ’ ” Id

. a t 5 0 8 (qu o ti n g B ri ef fo r R esp o n d en t 39 ). In r ej ect i ng M or al es ’ s expans i ve vi ew of the E x P o st Fa c to C l aus e, t he C our texpl ai ned thatadopt i ng thi s cont ent i on
w oul d r equi r e that w e i nval i dat e anyof a number of m i n or( and perhaps i nevi t abl e) m echa ni cal change s t h at m i ghtpr oduce s om e r emot e r i s k of i m pacton a pr i s oner ’ s expec t ed t erm of c o n f in e m e n t [ . . . a n d c h a rg e th e ju d ic ia ry . . . ] w i t h t he mi cr om anage m entof an e ndl es s arr ayof49 l egi s l at i ve adj us t m en ts t o par ol e and s ent enci ng p r o c e d u r e s , i n c lu d in g su c h in n o c u o u s a d ju stm e n ts as change s t o the mem ber s hi p of the B oar d of Pr i s on T erm s, res t r i ct i ons on the hour s that p r i s o n e r s m a y u s e th e p r i s o n l a w l i b r a r y, r educt i ons i n t he dur at i on o f the par ol e hea r i ng, r es t r i ct i ons on the ti m e al l ot t ed fora convi ct ed defe ndant ’ s r i g h to f

a l l o c u t i on befor e a s ent enci ng jud g e, an d p a g e li m it ati o n s o n a d ef en d an t’ s o b jec tio n s to p re se n ten c e re p o rts o r o n d o c u m e n ts s e e k in g a p a rd o n f

ro m th e g o v e rn o r. Id

. at50 8-09. T he C ou rt st at ed that w hil e “[t ]hese and co un t l ess ot herchange s m i ghtcr eat e s om e s pecul at i ve, att enuat ed r i s k of a f f e c t i ng a pri soner’ s actual t erm of conf i nem ent by m aking it m o re d if f icu lt f o r h im to m a k e a p e rsu a siv e c a se f o r e a rly release , . . . th a t fac t al o n e c an n o t end the m att er f o r ex po st f act o purpos es . ” I

d. at508- 09. I n G ar nerv. Jones , 5 2 9 U. S

. 2 4 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th e S u p r e me C our tcons i der ed w hetheran amendm entt o a G eor gi a rul e that change d par ol e r econs i der at i on r evi ew pr ocedur es vi ol at ed the Ex P o st Fa c to C la u s e . Id

. at246. J ones w as convi ct ed of m u rd e r a n d s e n te n c e d in 1 9 7 4 to a te rm o f lif e in p ri s o n . Id

. at 247. H avi ng es cape d and comm i t t ed a sec ond m ur der , J ones w a s a g a in c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d to lif e in p ri s o n in 1 9 8 2

. Id

. U nderG eor gi a l aw i n eff ectat the t i m e of J ones ’ s s econd offe ns e, t he st at e’ s B oar d of P ar dons and P ar ol es w as r equi r ed t o cons i deri nm at es s ervi ng l i fe s ent ence s forpar ol e af t ers even50 y e a rs , a n d if n o t g ra n te d , e v e ry th re e y e a rs th e re a f te r. Id

. ( ci t i ng G a . Cod e Ann

. § 4 2

- 9

- 4 5 ( b ) ( 1 9 8 2 ) )

. “ Aft e r J ones w as i ncar cer at ed b u t befor e he w as i ni t i al l ycons i der ed forpar ol e, th e B o a rd [ o f

P a rd o n s] a m e n d e d its ru les to re q u ire th a t p a ro le r econs i der at i on t ake pl ace onl yonce e veryei ghty ear s . ” Jones v. G ar ner , 164 F. 3d 589, 590 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng G a. C om p. R . & R e g s . r. 4 7 5 -3 -.0 5 .(2 ) n .1 ). J ones br oughtan ac t i on under4 2 U

. S. C

. § 1983, c la im in g , in tera lia , t hatthe amendm entt o R ul e 475- 3-

. 05( 2) violate d t he E

x Post Facto C la u s e . Id

. T he s ui tw as fi l ed agai ns ti ndi v idu al m ember s of the Par ol e B oar d. T he di s t r i ct cour tgr ant ed sum m ary j udgm ent i n favor of t he Par ol e B oar d on t he gr ound t hat t he amendm ent t o R ul e 475- 3-

. 05( 2) “cha nge[d] onl yt he t i m i ng bet w ee n r econs i der at i on hear i ngs fori nm at es s ent ence d t o l i fe i n pr i s on, ther ebyr el i evi ng t he B oar d of the nece s s i t yof hol di ng par ol e hea r i ngs for pr i s oner s w ho have no r eas onabl e chanc e of be i ng r el eas ed. ” G ar ner , 529 U

. S. at248 ( quot at i on om i t t ed)

. The El eventh C i r cui tr ever s ed, hol di ng t hat re tro a c tiv e a p p lica tio n o f th e a m e n d e d G e o rg ia R u le d if f e re d in m at er i al r es pect s fr om the C al i forni a l aw s us t ai ned i n Mor al es beca us e i t “s eems cert ai n” t o r es ul t i n s om e pr i s on ers se rvi ng e x te n d e d p e ri o d s o f

in c a rc e ra tio n . Jones , 164 F. 3d at589; G ar ner , 5 2 9 U .S . at 2 4 8 -4 9 . A s s u c h , the E lev e n th C irc u it h e ld t hat t he amended G eor gi a R ul e vi ol at ed t he E x P o st Fa c to C la u s e . Jones , 1 6 4 F .3 d a t 5 9 5

. T he Supr eme C o ur tr ever s ed, expl ai ni ng t hat“the s t andar d announce d i n Mor al es r eq u ir es a more r i gor ous51 ana ly sis of

t he l evel of r i s k cr eat ed bythe cha nge i n l aw . ” G ar ner , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 2 5 5

. Whe n t h e r u l e d o e s n o tb yi t s o wn t e r ms s h o w a s i gni fi cantr i s k, t he r es pondentm us tdemonstr at e, byevi dence dr aw n fr om t he rul e’ s pr acti cal im p lem e n tatio n b yth e a g e n c yc h a rg e d w ith exer ci s i ng di s cr et ion, t hat i t s r et r oact i ve appl i cat i on w i l l r es ul ti n a l o n g erper i od of i ncar cer at i on t han underthe ea r l i errul e. Id

. Be c a u s e J o n e s h a d n o ts h o wn “ t h a ta s a p p l i e d t o h i s o wn se n ten c e th e law c re a te d a sig n if ica n t risk o f

in c re a sin g h is puni s hm en t , ” the Supr eme C our tr emanded t he ca s e t o the di s t r i ctcour tt o det erm i ne “w hetherr etr oact ive appl i cat i on of t he amendm entt o R ul e 475- 3-

. 05( 2) i ncr eas es , t o a s i gni fi cant deg ree, t he li keli ho od or probab i l ity of p rol on ging [Jon es’ s] i ncar cer at i on. ” Id

. at255- 56. I ti s t hus clea r fr om t he Supr eme C our tcas es t hathave re v iew e d leg isla tiv e c h a n g e s a f f e c tin g p a ro le d e c isio n s th a t, t o demonstr at e an ex pos tf acto cl ai m , a p l ai nt i ff musts how t hat t he ef fec tof a r etr oact i ve cha nge i n t he l aw orpol i cycr eat ed a “s i gn ifi cantr i s k” thatthe s ent ence ul t i m at el ys erved w i l l be i ncr eas ed above and bey ond w hatw as pr es cr i bed w hen t he cr i m e w as cons um m at ed, as a re s ul t of the new l aw . A l l egat i ons t hatchange s i n t he l aw have pr oduced “ s om e ambi guous s or tof ‘di sadvan t age,’ [or]

. . . affect[ed] a pri soner’ s ‘ o p p o rtu n ity to t ake a dvant age of

pr ovi s i ons forear l yr el eas e, ’ ” ar e not52 s uffi ci ent gr ounds forbr i ngi ng an ex pos tf acto c la im

. Mor al es , 5 1 4 U

. S

. at 5 0 6 n . 3 (cit ati o n s o m itted). W ith thes e p ara m eters in m in d , w e w ill a d d re ss th e B o a rd o f P a r d o n s ’ a rg u m e n ts c on c e rni ng the v i abil i tyof P enn sy l van i a P ri son S ociety ’s ex p o st f act o c l a i m. 1 I n gr ant i ng t he Pl a i n t i f

f s ’ M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent on t he ex p o st fa c to cl ai m , i n i t s M ar ch 13, 2006 m emora ndum o p in io n , the D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d a s f o llo w s: [T]h e 1 9 9 7 a me n d me n t [ ’ ] s c h a n g e i n v o t i ng r equi r ement s , fr om m aj or i t yt o unani m i t y , cr eat es m ore than a s pecul at i ve and a t t enuat ed r i s k of in c re a sin g th e m e a su re o f p u n ish m e n t ap p lied to l i fe s ent ence d i nm at es . Fur t her , th e r equi r ement of convi nci ng al l , r athert han a maj or i t y , of the B o a rd m e m b e rs th a t co m m u tatio n is w a rra n ted is a m o re d if

f icu lt t a sk f

o r a n ya p p lica n t, an d w ill equal l ydi s advant age e veryappl i cantt o w hi ch the amendm ent i s appl i ed. A s s uch, Pl ai nt i ffs have o f f e re d e v id e n c e su f

f icie n t to d e m o n stra te ind ividu al di s a d v an tage as re q u ir ed b ythe T h ir d C i r cui ti n R i char ds on . P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 419 F. Supp. 2d at662 ( ci t at i on o m itted). T he B oard of

P ardons argued i n it s m oti on t o d i sm i ss,53 a n d th ro u g h o u t th is l iti g a tio n , tha t P lain tiff s h a v e f a iled to sta te an ex post

f act o cl ai m becau se, “i n P enn sy l van i a, cl em encyi s a pr oces s s epar at e and a par tfr om cr i m i nal c ase due pr oces s and in v o lv e s a m a t te r o f

e x e c u tiv e — n o t ju d ic ia l — g ra c e .” ( A ppell ant ’ s O p. B r . 17. ) T he B oar d of Par dons as s ert s t hat “[c ] om m ut at i on . . . i s an ad hoc e x e r c i s e o f e x e c u t i v e c l e m e n c y. A G overnor m ay comm ut e a s ent ence at any t i m e for anyr eas on w i t houtr efe r ence t o any s t andar ds

. ” (D efs

. ’ R epl yi n Supp. of Th e i rM o t
. t o Di s mi s s 9 ( q u o t i ng Sol em , 463 U

. S. at300- 01 ( ci t i ng C onnect i cut

B oar d of

P ar dons v. D um s chat , 45 2 U

. S. 4 5 8 (19 8 1 )))

. ) T he 1997 A m endmentconce r ns a cha nge i n pr ocedur es r equi r ed fors eeki ng comm ut at i on fr om t he G overnor . “U nl i ke pr obat i on, par don and comm ut at ion d eci s i ons have not t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n t h e b u s i n e s s o f c o u r t s ; a s s u c h , t h e y a r e r a r e l y, i f eve r , appr opr i at e s ubj ect s fo r ju di ci al r evi ew . ” D um s chat , 452 U

. S. at464. I n Snodgr as s v. R obi ns on , 5 1 2 F

. 3 d 9 9 9 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ), t he Ei ght h C i r cui taff

i r m ed a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of an ex pos tf act o c laim p u rs u a n t to R u l e 1 2 ( b )( 6 ). Id

. at1000- 01. Snodgr as s chal l enged a n I ow a l aw that alt er ed comm ut at i on pr ocedur es bychangi ng the fr equ encyw i t h w hi ch a l i fe s ent ence d pr i s onercoul d appl yt o the G overnorfor c o m m u tatio n . In a d d re ss in g th e p lain tiff ’s c h a llen g e , the E ig h th C i r cui texpl ai ned that t he foc us of the ex pos tf acto i n qui r yi s noton54 wh e t h e ra l e g i s l a t i v e c h a n g e p r od u c e s s o me amb i g u o u s s o r to f

“ d i s a d v a n t a g e , ” n o r. . . on w h ethe r a n am en d m en t aff ec ts a p ri so n er’s “oppor tu ni t yt o t ake a dvant age of pr ovi s i ons for ear l yrel eas e, ” buton w hetheranys uch cha nge al t er s t he def

i ni t i on of cr i m inal conductor in creas es t he penalty by w hich a cri m e is puni s habl e. Si m pl yput , noteverychange in t he l aw r ai s es ex pos tfac t o co n cer ns . T he cha nged l aw m us tcr eat e a “s i gni fi cant r i s k” of i ncr eas i ng th e o f f e n d e r’s p u n ish m e n t. H er e, Snodgr as s ’ s cl ai m d o es not hi nge on the avai l abi l i t yof par ol e, buton the a v ail abi l i t yof a comm ut at i on- - t he onl y m eans byw hi ch s he mi ght b e c o m e el i gibl e for parol e. W hereas chang es to par ol e pr ocedur es m ay , i n s om e ci r cumst ance s r ai s e ex pos tf

act o co n ce rns, ch an g es to Iow a ’s p ro c e d u re s f

o r c o m m u tatio n a p p lica tio n s d o n o t. T h is i s b ec au se m o st pa rol e p roc ed u res a re di s t i nctfr om t he hi ghl yper s onal , pol i cyor i ent ed, a n d l e g i s l a t i v e l yu n c h e c k e d a u t h o r i t yo f th e I o wa go vernor t o g rantsent ence c om m utat i on s. T h e un p red ict ab il ity o f a w h o lly discreti o n ary gr antof comm ut at i on i n I ow a pr ecl udes S n o d g ra ss f

ro m d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e c h a n g e s in Io w a ’s la w ra ise a “ sig n if ica n t risk ” th a t sh e w ill b e d e n ied a c o m m u ta tio n sh e o th e rw ise w o u ld55 h a v e re c e iv e d . A s s u c h , sh e c a n n o t d e m o n stra te t her e i s a s i gni fi cantr i s k herpuni s hm ent w i l l be l o n g e rt h a n i two u l d h a v e b e e n u n d e rf o r me rI o wa C ode Sect i on 902. 2. A ccor di ngl y , s he ca nnot m ake outan ex pos tf

acto c l a i m. I d. a t 1 0 0 2 -0 3 (c itatio n s a n d f o o tn o te o m itt e d ); see al so Sm i th v. Sam ps on , 2009 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 84657 ( E

. D

. M i ch. Sept

. 17, 20 09 ) (gr anti ng defe nd ants ’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss pl ai nti ff’s ex po st f act o c laim c h a llen g in g a c h a n g e in c o m m u tatio n p ro c e d u re s in M ichig an that are sim il ar to tho se in P en n sy lvan ia). I n Sm ith , t he pl ai nt i ff’ s “cl ai m [w as ] t hatt he comm ut at i ve e ffe ctof cha nges i n [M i chi gan] s t at e l aw have i m pai r ed hi s oppor tuni t y for comm ut at i on i n vi ol at i on of the Ex P os tFact o C l ause o f the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” Sm ith , 2009 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X IS 8 4 6 5 7 at*3. I n oppos i ng t he d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n to d is m i ss, Sm ith arg u ed that, u n d er G arner, h e w as en ti tl ed to sho w , “b y ev iden ce d raw n fro m the r u le’s pr act i cal i m pl ement at i on byt he agencychar ged w i t h exer ci s i ng di s cr et i on, . . . i t s r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on w i l l r es ul t i n a l onger per i od of i ncar cer at i on t han under t he ear l i er rul e” beca us e “the r equi s i t e r i s k w as not i nher ent i n t he fr amew or k of an a m ended ru l e. ” Id

. at *4 ( ci t i ng G ar ner , 529 U

. S. at255)

. T he di s t r i ct c o u rt h e ld th a t “ G arner [i s ] di s t i ngui s habl e gi ven the di ffe r ence s i n t he di s cr et i onaryauthor i t yof t he par ol e boar d and t he governor . ” Id

. C i t i ng Sn od grass , t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed t he def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed upon i t s det erm i nat i on t hat Sm i t h “can no tshow that the c h a n g e [i n the l aw ] cr eat es a56 ‘s i gn i fi cant ri sk’ t hat he w i l l be denied a com m utat i on ” beca use “the i m pactof any change i n the l aw . . . w i l l neverbe more than sp e c u lativ e r e lativ e to th e g o v e rn o r’s e x e rc ise o f h e r rig h t to c o m m u te s e n te n c e s . Id

. at*8 ( ci t i ng Sn od gr a ss , 512 F. 3d at 1 0 0 2 n . 2 ). I ti s w el l s et t l ed that , “[a ]s a m att erof l aw , par ol e and co m m ut at i on ar e di ffe r entconce pt s , des pi t e s om e s ur fac e s i m i l ar i t i es . ” Sol em , 4 6 3 U

. S. at300. I n Sol em , t h e S u p r e me C o u rt e x p lain e d : Pa r o l e i s a r e g u l a rp a r to f t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i ve pr oces s . A s s um i ng good behavi or , i ti s t he norm al expec t at i on i n the vas t m aj or i t y of cas es . T he l aw gener al l ys peci fi es w hen a pri s onerw i l l be e lig ib le to b e c o n sid e re d f o r p a ro le, a n d d e tails t he s t andar ds and pr ocedur es appl i cabl e atthat t i m e. See, e. g. , G ree n h ol t zv. N ebr as ka Penal I nm at es , 442 U

. S. 1 ( 1979) ( det ai l i ng N eb r as ka p aro le pro ce d u res); Mor r is s ey v . B r ew er , 408 U

. S

. 471, 477 ( 1972) ( “the pr act i ce of r el eas i ng p riso n e rs o n p a ro le b e f o re th e e n d o f

th e ir s ent ence s has become an i nt egr al p art of t he p e no l og i cal sy st em ”). T hu s i t i s po ssi ble t o pr edi ct , at l eas t t o s om e ext ent , w hen par ol e mi ght b e g ra n te d

. Id

. at300- 01. T he C ons t i tut i ons of th e U n it ed St at es and of the57 C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia e n tru st cle m e n c yd e c isio n s to th e s o le d is c re tio n o f

th e e x e c u tiv e b ra n c h

. See U .S . C o n st. a rt. I I , § 2, cl

. 1 ( t he Pr es i dent“s hal l have Pow er t o gr antR epr i eves and Par dons forO ffe ns es agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es . . . ”) ; Pa. C ons t
. ar t
. I V , § 9 ( a) ( “I n al l cr i m i nal cas es exce pt i m peac hm ent t he G overnor s hal l have pow er t o r emi tfi nes and for fei tur es , t o gr antr epr i eves , comm ut at i on of s ent en ces a nd p a rd o n s . . .” ). T h e g e n e sis o f

th e d o c trin e o f

th e so v e r e ig n p o w e r to gra n t c lem encyi n the U nit ed S t at es i s foun d in the E ng l i sh c o m m o n law . “In E n g lan d , th e c lem e n c y p o w e r w a s v e ste d in t h e Cr o wn a n d c a n b e t r a c e d b a c k t o t h e 7 0 0 ’ s . ” Herrer a v. C ol l i ns , 5 0 6 U

. S

. 3 9 0 , 4 1 2 (19 9 3 ). A s the S u p rem e C o u rt e x p lain e d in Schi ck v

. R eed , 4 1 9 U

. S

. 2 5 6 (19 7 4 ): A tthe t i m e of the dr aft i ng and adopt i on of our C o n s titu tio n it w a s c o n s id e re d e le m e n ta ry th a t . .

. t he ki ng m ayext end hi s m er cyon w hatt erm s he p l eases, and con sequen t l y m ay ann ex t o h is p a rd o n a n yc o n d iti o n th a t h e th in k s f it. Id

. a t2 6 1 ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. H i s t o r i c a l l y, t he exe r ci s e of c l e me n c yauthor i t yhas been c ons i der ed “a m at t er of gr ace . ” See, e. g. , O hio A du l t P arole A uth. v. W oo da rd , 523 U

. S. 272, 282 ( 1998) ( a pet i t i on for comm ut at i on i s a “uni l at er al h o p e ” ; c lem e n c y is “ a m a tter o f g ra c e ” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

i l s on , 3 2 U

. S

. 1 5 0 , 1 6 0 (18 3 3 ) (“A p ard o n is an ac t of g rac e” ). I n W i l s on , dr aw i ng on E ng land ’s hi s t or i cal and j udi ci al58 exper i ence , C hi ef Jus t i ce John M ar s hal l expl ai ned t he or i gi n of th e e x e c u tiv e p a rd o n : T he cons t i tut i on gi ves t o t he pr es i dent , i n gener al t erm s , “the pow er t o gr antr epr i eves and par dons f o r o f f e n c e s a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s .” As t h i s p o we rh a d b e e n e x e r c i s e d , f r o m t i me i m m emori al , byt he exe cut i ve of thatnat i on w ho se l ang u a g e i s our l ang uag e, and t o w ho se j ud i ci al i nst i t uti on s ours bear a cl ose r es embl ance [, ] w e adoptt hei r pr i nci pl es r es pect i ng t he oper at i on and effec tof a pa r don, and l ook i nt o t hei r books for t he rul es pr es cr i bi ng t he manneri n w hi ch i ti s t o be used bythe per s on w h o w o u ld a v a il h im se lf o f it. A par don i s an ac t of gr ace , pr ocee di ng fr om the pow e re ntrus t e d wi t h the e xe c ut i on of the l aw s, w h ich e x e m p ts th e in d iv id u a l, on w h o m it i s b e sto w e d , fr o m th e p u n ish m e n t th e law in f licts fora cr i m e he ha s com m it ted. I ti s t he pr i vat e, t hough offi ci al actof the exe cut i ve magi s t r at e, d e liv e re d to th e in d iv id u a l f o r w h o se b e n e f

it i t is i nt ended, and notcomm uni cat ed off i ci al l yt o t he cour t
. I ti s a cons t i tuentpar tof the j u d ici al sy st em , t hat the judge sees on l yw i t h judi ci al ey es, and know s not hi ng r es pect i ng anypar t i cul arcas e, o f w h ich h e is n o t in f

o rm e d ju d icia lly . A p riv a te59 deed, notcomm uni cat ed t o hi m , w hat everm aybe its charact er, w hethera pardo n o r r el ease, is t ot al l yunknow n and ca nnotbe acted on. T he l oos enes s w hi ch w oul d be i ntr oduced i nt o j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs, w oul d pr ove fa t al t o the gr eat pr i nci pl es of j us t i ce, i f t he j udge mi ghtnot i ce a nd actupon fac t s notbr oughtr egul ar l yi nt o the cause. S uch a proceed i ng , i n o rdi narycases, w oul d s ubver tt he bes t es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es , and over tur n t hos e rul es w hi ch h av e bee n s ett l ed by t he w i sdom of ag es. W i l s on , 32 U

. S. at160- 61. I n E x p a r te W

e lls , 5 9 U .S . 3 0 7 (1 8 5 6 ), th e C o u rt a g a in a d d r e s s e d t h e o r i g i n a n d e x e r c i s e o f e x e c u t i v e c l e m e n c y: A tt he t i m e of our s epar at i on fr om G r eatB r i t ai n, [the par don] pow er h ad bee n exer ci s ed byt he ki ng, as t he chi ef e xecut i ve. Pr i ort o t he r evol ut i on, t he col oni es , bei ng i n eff ectunderthe l aw s of E ng l and , w ere accu st om ed to the ex erci se o f it i n th e v a rio u s f

o rm s, a s th e ym a yb e f

o u n d in th e E n g lish law b o o k s. T h e yw e re , o f c o u rse , to be appl i ed as occa s i ons occurr ed, and they cons t i tut ed a p artof the j ur i s prudence of A ngl o- A m er i ca. A tthe t i m e of the adopt i on of the c o n sti tuti o n , A m erican sta te sm en w ere conver s ant w i t h t he l aw s of E ngl and, and fa m i l i ar60 w i t h t he pr er ogat i ves exer ci s ed byt he cr ow n. H en ce , w h en the w o rd s to g ran t pard o n s w ere used i n t he cons t i tut i on, theyconvey ed t o the m i nd t he au t ho ri t yas exerci sed byt he E ng l i sh crow n, or byi t s r epresent at i ves in t he co l on i es. A tt hatt i m e both E n g l i s hm en and A m er i cans att ac h ed the s am e m ea n ing to the w o rd p ard o n . In t he conve nt i on w hi ch fr amed t he const i tut i on, no eff or t w as m ade t o defi ne or change i t s m eani ng, a lth o u g h it w a s lim ited in c a se s o f im p e a c h m e n t. Id

. at311. I n Herrer a , the C our tr eaf fi r m ed the tr adi t i onal conce p t i o n o f

c l e me n c ya s a f

u n c t i o n o f

th e e x e c u t i v e b r a n ch, s epa rat e fr om adj udi cat orypr ocee di ngs w i t hi n the J udi ci al B ra n c h

. Herrer a , 506 U

. S. at 411- 13. T he C our t not ed thatone of the greatadv antag e s o f m on archyi s “that there i s a m agi s t r at e, w h o h as i ti n hi s pow ert o ext end mer cy , w her ever h e t h i n k s i ti s d e s e r v e d : h o l d i n g a c o u r to f e q u i t yi n h i s o wn br eas t , t o s oft en t he ri gour of t he gener al l aw , i n s uch cr i m i nal cas es as m eritan exe m pt i on fr om puni s hm ent
. ” Id

. at412 (qu o t i ng 4 W i l l i am B l acks t one, C om m ent ar i es on t he Law s of E ngl and *397)

. I n D um s chat , the C our ti ns t ruct ed that“par don and comm ut at i on deci s i ons have nottr adi t i onal l ybeen the b u sin e ss o f

c o u rts; a s su c h , the ya re ra re ly , if e v e r, ap p ro p ria te su bject s forj udi ci al r evi ew . ” D um s chat , 4 5 2 U .S . at 4 6 4 ; s ee al s o O hi o A dul tP ar ol e Aut h. , 523 U

. S. at289 ( “[I ] ti s t rue that

‘ par don and comm ut at i on deci s i ons have nott r adi t i onal l ybeen61 t he bus i nes s of court s . . . ’”) ( quot i ng D u m s c h a t, 452 U

. S. at 4 6 4 )). T h e P e n n s yl v a n i a c o u r t s h a v e h e l d th a tth e j u d i c i a r y can[ not ] i m pi nge upon t he exc l us i ve j ur i s di ct i on o f th e e x e c u tiv e b ra n c h o f th e g o v e rn m e n t in [d eterm ining w h ethe r t o co m m u te a se n ten ce ]. A ct i on byt he B oar d of Par dons i s i n acc or dance w i t h cons ti tut i onal pr ovi s i ons and i n no w ay co m es u n d er the ae g is of the c o u rt s. Ind ee d , w ere a c o u rtto rev iew the co n d u ct o f a he aring b ef o re t he B oar d of Par dons i t w oul d be a cl eari nvas i on by j udi ci al di r ect i on of t he i m m uni t ygr ant ed the exec ut i ve br anch of

ourgovernm ent
. Such i s not con s o n a n twi t h o u rc o n s t i tu t i o n a l d o c t r i n e of s e p a ra tio n o f

p o w e rs . C om m on w e alth ex rel

. C aterv. M yers , 412 Pa. 67, 71 ( 1963) ( quot i ng Mis s is s i

ppi v. Johns on , 4 W a ll. 4 7 5 (1 8 6 6 ), w h ich h e ld t hat“[t ] he C ongr es s i s the leg isl at i ve depa r t m entof the governm ent ; t he Pr es i denti s the exe cut i ve depa r t m ent
. N ei t her c a n b e re s tr a in e d in its a c tio n b yth e ju d ic ia l d e p a rt m e n t” ), c e rt. deni ed , 3 7 6 U .S . 9 3 3 (1 9 6 4 ); see al so C o m m o n w e a lth v . G a ito , 4 1 9 A

. 2 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 2 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 0 ) (“T h e G o v ern o r’s p o w er to co m m u te s en tenc es, on rec o m m en d ati o n o f th e B o ard of Par dons , i s excl us i ve, and court s m aynoti n anyw ayi m pi nge o n the e x erc ise o f th is po w er.”). T he S u p reme C our thas i ns t ruct ed thatt her e ar e four62 e x c e p tio n s to th e so v e re ig n ’s e x e c u tiv e c lem e n c yp o w e rs. F irst, a p ard o n ca n n o t interfe re w ith the ve sted p rop erty ri g h ts o f th ir d p a rt ie s in v io la tio n o f th e T a k in g s C la u s e . See U .S . C o n st. amend. V (“N o r s hal l pr i vat e pr oper t ybe t aken f orpubl i c us e, w i t ho ut j ustcom pen sat i on . ” ); s ee al s o Knot e v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 95 U

. S. 149, 154 ( 1877) (“N ei t herdoes t he par don aff ectany r i ght s w h ich have ve s t ed i n ot her s di r ect l ybythe exe cut i on of t he j udgm entfort he off ence , orw hi ch have been a cqui r ed by o thers w h il st th at j u d g m en t w as in fo rce . ”); E x par t e G ar l and , 71 U

. S. 333, 381 ( 1866) ( “Ther e i s onl yt hi s l i m i tat ion t o [the par don pow er ’ s ] oper at i on: i t does notr es t or e off i ces for fei t ed, orpr oper t yorinter es t s ves t ed i n ot her s i n cons equenc e of the convi ct i on and j udgm ent
. ”)

. Second, i n H ar tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 118 U

. S. 62 ( 1886) , t he C our ti ns t ruct ed thata par don cannot r equi r e the paym entof funds fr om the Tre as uryi n vi ol at i on of th e S p e n d in g C la u s e . Id . at 6 7 ; see al so Kn o te , 95 U

. S. at154 ( “ Th e p o wer o f t h e p a r d o n . . . c a n n o t t o u c h mon e y s i n t he t r eas ur yof the U ni t ed St at es , exce ptexpr es s l yauthor i zed byact of C ongr es s . T he C ons t i tut i on pl ace s thi s r es t r i ct i on u p o n the par doni ng pow er . ”)

. T hi r d, a par don cannotr equi r e a pr i s oner to f o rf e it h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts u n re a s o n a b ly. See Sc hi ck , 419 U

. S. a t2 6 6 ( n o t i n g th a tth e p a r d o n p o wer“ p e r mi t s the at t achmentof a n y condi t i ons w hi ch does notot herw i s e off end th e C o n s titu tio n ” ). T he Supr eme C o u r thas al s o i ns t ruct ed thatt he pr ocedur es byw hi ch a pa r don i s gr ant ed mustcompl yw i t h t he D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. O h io A d u ltT he P enns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyhas notappea l ed fr om the 10 D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f th e P lain tiff

s’ d u e p ro c e ss c laim in th is c ro ss -a p p e a l. 63 P ar ol e Aut h. , 523 U

. S. at276. “The D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i s not vi ol at ed, [how ever ] , w her e . . . t he pr ocedur es i n ques t i on do no m o re th a n c o n f

irm th a t th e c lem e n c y a n d p a rd o n p o w e r is c o m m itte d , a s is o u r tra d itio n , to th e a u th o ri ty o f th e e x e c u tiv e .” Id

. J us t i ce O ’ C onnorexpl ai ned i n herconcurr ence i n O h io A dul tP ar ol e Aut h. : [A] l t h o u g h i t i s t ru e t h a t “ p a r d o n and comm ut at ion d ec isi o n s h av e n o t tradi t i onal l ybeen t he bus i nes s of court s , ” D um s chat , s upr a, at464, a n d th a t th e d e c isio n w h e th e r t o g ra n t cle m e n c yis e n tru s te d to th e G o v e rn o r u n d e r [ s ta te ] l a w , I b e liev e th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o rre c tly co n clud ed that so m e m i ni m alp r o c e d u r al safegu ards applyt o clem e ncyproceed i ng s. Ju di ci al i nt ervent i on m i ght , forexampl e, be w a rra n ted in th e f

a c e o f a sc h e m e w h e re b ya sta te o f fi ci al fl i pp ed a coin t o det erm i ne w hetherto g ra n t cle m e n c y , o r in a c a s e w h e re th e S tate a rb itrar ily d e n ied a p riso n e r an y a c c e ss to its c le m e n c yp ro c e s s . Id

. at 28 9 (O ’C o n n o r, J. co n cu rri n g ). 10 B ey ond t hes e judi ci al l yi m pos ed l i m i t at i ons on t heFo r e x a mpl e , Con g r e s s c a n c h e c k mi s u s e o f t he par don 11 p o w e r b yim p e a c h in g th e P re s id e n t. S e e e .g ., U

. S

. C o n st. art. I, § 2 , cl. 5 (“ T h e H o u se o f R e p re se n tativ e s . .. sh a ll h a v e th e so le P o w e r of Im p e a c h m e n t.”); id

. a rt. I, § 3 , cl. 6 (“ T h e S e n a te s h a ll h a v e th e so le P o w e r to trya ll Im p e a c h m e n ts.” ); i d. art
. I I , § 4 ( “The Pre s i dent

. . . s hal l be r emoved fr om O ff ice on I m peac hm entfor , and C onvi ct i on of, T r eas on, B r i bery , orot her H ig h C rim e s a n d M isd e m e a n o rs.” ); E x par t e G r os s m an , 267 U

. S. 87, 121 ( 1925) ( not i ng thatt he Pr es i d en t coul d be i m peac hed i f he pa r doned t oo m anycr i m i nal cont empt s )

. T he v o t e r s a l s o h a v e t h e a b i l i t yt o c h e c k th e e x e c u t i v e c l e me n cy pow er by choos i ng not t o r e- el ect a Pr es i dentorG overnorw hom they b eli ev e m ay b e i n ap p rop ri ately u sing the pa rdo n p o w e r. Mor r is on v. O l

s on , 4 8 7 U .S

. 6 5 4 , 7 1 1 (1 9 8 8 ) ( S c a lia , J ., di s s ent i ng) ( “U l t i m at el y , t her e i s t he pol it i cal chec k thatt he p eo p le w il l r ep lace tho se in the p o li ti ca l b ra n ch es . . . w h o are g u ilty o f a b u s e .” ). 64 exec ut i ve cl emencypow er , t he r emai ni ng chec ks on t he s over ei gn pow erof t he Pr es i dent orof a G overnorar e l eftt o t he l egi s l at i ve br anch a nd t o t he pow er s ves t ed i n t he peopl e. 11 H e re , th e v o ter s o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia expr es s l y vot ed t o l i m i tt he G overnor ’ s cl emencypow er , as t hey a re e m p o w e re d to d o u n d e r A r tic le X I o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C on st i tuti on . P a. C on st
. art
. X I. B y m and at i ng t hat a ll r ecomm endat i ons fora comm ut at i on cons i der ed byt he G overnorm us tfi r s tbe appr oved bya unani m o u s vot e of the B oar d of Par dons , t he 1997 A m endment r es t r i ct ed, butdi d not65 abs ol ut el yfor ecl os e, the exer ci s e of the G overnor ’ s s over ei gn pow ert o gr anta comm u t at i on t o i nm at es s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent
. T he pow ert o gr antordenycomm ut at i ons , as pr es cr i bed by t he C om m onw eal t h’ s vot er s , r es t s s ol el yw i t h t he exec ut i ve br anch w hi ch m ay “denyt he r eques t ed r el i ef f orany cons t i tut i onal l y perm i s s i bl e re as on or forno r eas on atal l

. ” See D um s chat , 452 U

. S. at467 ( B r ennan, J

. concurr i ng) ( s t at i ng t hat an i n m ate sent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entform ur derhas “no pr ot ect i bl e l i ber t yi nt er es ti n a par don” ( ci t i ng Meachum , 427 U

. S. at228) )

. A ccor di ngl y , t he Penns y l vani a Pr i s on Soci etyhas notdemonstr at ed thati thas a viab l e cl ai m t hatt he 1997 A m endmentr ai s es a “ s i g n i f i c antr i s k” thatcomm ut at i ons w i l l be d e n ie d th a t o th e rw is e w o u ld h a v e b e e n re c e iv e d

. Sn od grass , 5 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 2

. 2 T he B oar d o f Par dons al s o ar gues t hatt he 1997 A m endment does notvi ol at e the E x Post Facto C l ause be cause it d o e s n o t “in c re a se [ ] th e p e n a lty ” b yw h ich a c rim e is puni s habl e of i nm at es w ho ar e s ent enced t o l i fe w i t houtthe p o ssibil ity o f pa role. (A p p ell an ts’ R ep lyB r. 1 0

. ) See M or al es , 514 U

. S. at 505. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatthe r etr os pect i ve appl i cat i on of the 1997 A m endmentvi ol at es t he E x P o st Fa c to C l aus e bec ause the “cha nge i n vot i ng r equi r ement s , fr om m aj or i t yt o unan im i t y , cr eat es m or e than a s pecul at i ve and at t enuat ed ri s k of i ncr eas i ng t he meas ur e of puni s hm entappl i ed to lif e s e n te n c e d in m a te s ” a n d “ d is a d v a n ta g e th e a p p li c a n ts .” P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 4 1 9 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 6 6 1

.66 C i t i ng t he s t andar d s etfor t h i n G ar ner , the D istri ct C o u rt cons i der ed “e vi dence dr aw n fr om the [ne w l aw ’ s ] pr act i cal im p lem e n tatio n ,” i.e ., a n a n a ly sis o f th e p a rties ’ stip u late d ra te and fr eque ncyof comm ut at i ons gr ant ed t o l i fe- s ent ence d i nm at es i n Penns y l vani a betw een 1970 a nd 2005, and conc l uded t hatas appl i ed t o t hos e i nm at es s ent ence d aft eri t s eff ect i ve dat e, t he 1997 A m endmentpos ed a “ s i gni fi cant ri s k” of i ncr eas ed p u n is h m e n t
. P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 419 F. Supp. 2d at 660- 61 n. 1 & n. 2. B as ed upon i t s fi ndi ng t hat “the t ot al num ber of r ec om m endat i ons byt he [Par dons ] B oar d forcomm ut at i on for li fe s ent ence d pr i s oner s [w as ] s i gni fi cant l yl ow ert han the num berof r ecomm endat i ons i n the ei ghty ear s pr i or t o t he [1997 A ] m endment s ’ pas s age, ” the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded: [E]ve n t hough a l es s t han unani m ous vot e di d not guar ant ee a l i fe s ent ence d pr i s onercomm ut at i on pr i ort o the pas s age of the 1997 amendm ent s and a lth o u g h c o m m u tatio n is n o t co m p lete ly for ecl os ed fol l ow i ng t he pas s age of t he a m e n d m e n ts, th e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n ts s ig n if ica n tly r educe d t he l i kel i hood of a l i fe s ent ence d pr i s oner r ece i ving a r ecomm endat i on bythe B oar d for c o m m u tatio n a n d , as su c h , th e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n ts m a k e c o m m u tatio n s a n d p a ro le e v e n m o re re m o te for tho se i nm at es. Id

. a t 6 6 0 -6 1

. In g ra n ti n g the P ri so n S o ciety ’s M o ti o n fo r S u m m ary67 J udgm ent , t he D i s t r i ct C our t bas ed i t s deci s i on on the fol l ow i ng p a s s a g e f

r o m Mi cke ns - Thom as v. V aughn : [A ] n offe nder , pr i ort o hi s convi ct i on and se n ten c in g , is en tit led to k n o w n o t o n ly h is m axi m um pos s i bl e puni s hm ent , but al s o hi s orher chanc es of r ece i vi ng ear ly rele as e, s i nce thi s t oo i s a r el evan tfact or i n the pl ea bar gaini ng cal culus. A n ad verse ch ang e i n on e’s prospects for r el ease di s advant ages a pr i s onerj us tas s ur el yas an upw ar d change i n the m i ni m um dur at i on of s ent ence . P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 419 F. Supp. 2d at6 5 9 (quot i ng Mi cke ns - Thom as , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 3 9 2 ). Mi cke ns - Thom as i nvol ved an ex p o st fa c to c h a llen g e to a “materi al m odi fi cat i on of [Penns y l vani a] par ol e l aw s . ” Mi cke ns - Thom as , 32 1 F

. 3d at 37 6 ( em ph asi s add ed). M i cken sT h o m a s w a s c o n v ic te d o f ra p e a n d m u rd e r in 1 9 6 4

. Id

. H e w as sen t enced t o li fe i n p ri son. T he G ov ernor of P enn sy l va n ia c o m m u t e d M ic k e n s -T h o m a s ’s lif e s e n te n c e . Id

. at 377. In D ece m ber1996 , t he Penns y l vani a l egi s l atur e cha nged the l aw c o n c e rn in g th e d e c isio n -m a k in g p o lic ie s o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia B o ard o f P rob ati o n an d P aro le t o req u ir e tha t th e “ p ri m ary c o n sid e ra ti o n ” in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a p riso n e r w a s e lig ib le f o r re lea se o n p a ro le w a s “th e risk to p u b lic sa f e ty b y th e p a ro le p e tit io n e r a s th e d o m in a n t f a c to r in e v a lu a tin g p a ro le appl i cat i ons . ” Id

. “ Th e 1 9 4 1

- 1 9 9 6 s t a tu t e , i n e f f e c t a tth e t i me68 o f T h o m a s ’ s c o n v ictio n , m a d e n o sp e c if ic m e n tio n o f

p u b lic s afe t y . ” Id

. M i cken s- T ho m as w as den i ed parol e ov er the co urse of the fol l ow i ng t hr ee y ear s for var i ous r eas ons , i ncl udi ng that his past cri m e w as a sex off ense and t hat he w as “in a ‘deni ers ’ gr oup – t hos e w ho deny r es pons i bi l i t y for the u nder l y i ng offe ns e. ” Id

. at 38 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n D ece m ber1999, M i ckens

- T hom as fi l ed a pet i t i on for a w ri t of

h ab ea s c o rp u s in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt “al l eg[i ng] t hatt he B oar d deni ed hi s par ol e i n v iolati o n of the E x P os tFact o cl aus e, byappl y i ng r etr oact i vel ythe r evi s ed D ece m ber1996 par ol e s t atut e. ” Id . a t 3 8 3

. T he di s t r i ctcourti n Mi ckens-Th om as h el d t hatthe P e nn sy l van i a B oard of P robat i on and P arol e “retroact i v e ly a p p lie d th is [ sta tu to ry ] p o licyc h a n g e a d v e rse lyto th e p a ro le appl i cat i ons of L oui s M i ckens

- T hom as . . . i n vi ol at i on of the Ex P os tFact o cl aus e. ” Id

. at 3 7 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h is C o u rt aff i r m ed, h o ldi ng t hat“t o r etr oact i vel yappl ychange s i n t he p a ro le la w s[ ,] m a d e a f ter c o n v ictio n f

o r a life se n ten c e in P enn sy l van i a t hat adversel yaffect the r e l e a s e of pr i s on ers w ho se s ent ence s have be en comm ut ed, vi ol at es the E x P o s t Fa c to c l a u s e . ” Id . a t39 3 (em ph asi s added ). T his C ou rtal so c o n c lu d e d th a t: P re-199 6, a pri soner cou l d b e den i ed p arole becau se of p ub l i c safet ycon cerns onlyi f t ho se co n ce rns to g ethe r w ith o ther relev an t fac tors o u tw e ig h e d , b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e , t h e lib e rty69 i nt er es t s of the i nm at e. T he 1996 pol i cychange pl ace d fi r s t and for emost t he publ i c s afe t yto t he di s advant age of t he r emai ni ng l i ber t y i nt er es t of the p ri so n er. I d. at385. T he i s s ue pr es ent ed i n Mi cke ns - Thom as i s s i m i l ar t o the ar gum en ts r ai s ed byt he pet i t i oner s i n W e a v e r, Mo r a le s , and G ar neri n chal l engi ng t he deni al of releas e on par ol e. I n eac h of thes e ca s es , pr i s oner s s eeki ng r el eas e on par ol e chal l enged a s t atut or ychange i n par ol e r el eas e l aw s . M i ckens

- T hom as w as s e n t e n c e d t o l i f

e wi t h o u tt h e p o s s i b i l i t yo f p a r o l e . He ch all en g ed the re tr o sp ec ti v e a p p li ca ti o n o f P en n sy lvan ia’s par ol e l aw s , not the p r ocedur es empl oy ed byt he B oar d of P a rd o n s f

o r p ri s o n e rs s e e k in g a c o m m u ta tio n . In su p p o rto f it s d ec isi o n o n this m att er, the D istri ct C o u rt r el i ed on thi s C our t ’ s s t at ementi n Mi cke ns - Thom as t hat “‘e li g ibi l i t yfora comm ut at i on of a l i fe s ent ence ent ai l s t he p o ss ib ili tyo f

p a r o le [ ,]’ a n d a lth o u g h c o m m u tatio n s ‘a re q u ite rar e, ’ appl i cat i on of t he new parol e po l i ci es r end ered T ho m as’ pr os pect s forpar ol e ‘ even mor e r emot e’ i n vi ol at ion of the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e. ” P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 419 F. Supp. 2 d at 659 (quot i ng Mi cke ns - Thom as , 3 2 1 F. 3 d a t3 9 2 )

. Ba s ed upon t hi s comm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC ourt co ncl uded thatt he r etr oact i ve appl icat i on of the 1997 A m endmentt o the G overnor’s s over ei gn cl emencypow er s cr eat ed a “ s i gni fi cant ri s k ” o f in c re a s e d p u n is h m e n t f o r l if e -s e n te n c e d p ri s o n e rs . I d.70 W e d is a g re e . Mi cke ns - Thom as i s notdi s pos i t i v e on the ques t i on w hethert he 1997 A m endment , w hi ch concerned the exe cut i ve cl emency pow er , i m pai r ed a pr i s oner ’ s r i ght s underthe E x P ost Fa c to C l aus e. Mi cke ns - T h o m as so lel yco n ce rns a p ri so n er’s rig h t to p a ro le. It d o e s n o t a d d re ss th e v iab ili tyo f a c laim chal l engi ng t he s cope of a G overnor ’ s cl emencypow ert o gr ant c o m m u ta tio n . Fur t herm or e, “[t ] her e i s no cons t i tut i onal orinher ent ri g h t of a c o n v ict ed p erso n to b e c o n d it ion a llyrelease d b ef o re t he expi r at i on of a va l i d s ent ence . ” Gr e e n h o l t z v . I n m at es of N eb. P enal & C or r . C om pl ex, 442 U

. S. 1, 7 ( 1979)

. “The unpr edi ct abi l i t y of a w hol l ydi s cr et i onarygr antof comm ut at i on

. . . p re c lu d e s [ p lain tiff

s] f ro m d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e c h a n g e s in

. . . [the] l aw r ai s e a ‘ s i gni fi cantr i s k’ that [p lai n ti ffs ] w i l l be d e n ie d a c o m m u ta tio n [ th e y ] o th e rw is e w o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d .” Sn od grass , 512 F. 3d at 1 002. “A s s uch, [Pl ai nt i ffs ] cannot demonstr at e ther e i s a si gni fi cant r i s k [thei r ] puni s hm entw i l l be l ongert han i tw oul d have be en underform er[l aw ]

. ” Id

. T her e i s no ex pos tf

acto v io latio n w h e re a re tro a c tiv e ly appl i ed l aw does notm ake one ’ s puni s hm ent m or e bur dens om e, butm er el ycr eat es a di s advant age. See Ham een v. D el aw are , 2 1 2 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 8 n .2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (e x p lain in g th a t a la w is n o t ex p o st fa c to m er el ybeca u se it w o rked t o t he detr i m entor s ubs t ant i al di s advant age of t he de fe ndant s ) ( quot at i ons and c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia P riso n S o c ietyis rep resent i ng t he i nt er es t s of pr i s oner s w ho ar e s ervi ng a m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f

lif e w ith o u t th e p o s s ib ility o f p a ro le

. See71 Mi ckens

- Thom as , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 3 7 7 (“ L if e se n ten c e s in P en n sy lvan ia pre su m pt i vel yexclude any p o ssibil ityo f p aro le. ”). “[I ] n Pennsy lvani a, . . . t he l egal s ent ence i s t he maxi m um s ent ence . ” Comm o n we a l th v . Su t l ey , 474 Pa. 256, 268 ( 1977) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); see al so C om m onw eal th v. D ani el , 430 Pa. 642 ( 1968) ( “U nderPenns y lvan ia l aw . . . t he maxi m um s ent ence i s t he onl ypor t i on of the s ent ence w hi ch has l egal val i dit y . . . . ”)

. T he 1997 A m endment , ther efor e, does not “i ncrease[] t he p enaltybyw hich [anyof P l ai nti ffs’] cri m e[s] [w er e] puni s habl e, ” bec aus e al l of the cr i m es for w h ic h the p ri so n ers rep rese n ted b ythe P en n sy lvan ia P ri so n S o cietyw ere convi ct ed w er e puni s habl e byl i fe i n pr i s on w i t houtt he p o ss ib ili tyo f

p a ro le a t th e tim e th e y w e re c o n v icte d a n d v a lid ly s e n te n c e d

. Mor al es , 514 U

. S. at506. W e di s agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s concl us i on thatt he r etr os pect i ve appl i cat i on of the 1997 A m endm entt o the G overno r ’ s cl emencypow er“cr eat es m or e than a s pecul at i ve and att en u at ed r i s k of i ncr eas i ng the meas ur e of puni s hm ent appl i ed t o l i fe s ent ence d i namt es . ” P a . P ris o n S o c ’y v . R e n d e ll , 4 1 9 F

. S u p p . 2 d at 66 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 3 Fi nal ly , t he B oar d of Par dons ar gues t hat“the [D i s t r i ct C ] our ts houl d have det erm i ned t hat , on i t s fac e, t hat[the Second A m ended Com pl ai nt ] pr es ent ed no vi abl e ex pos tf acto c laim ar i s i n g fro m t he 1997 cons t i tut i onal amendm entchangi ng the vot i ng pr ocedur es of t he B oar d of Par dons

. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ O p.72 B r. 2 8 -29

. ) “C h an g es in p ro c ed u res tha t m igh t m ak e itm o re d i f f i c u l tt o o b t a i n . . . c l e me n c y d o n o t c a r r ywi t h th e m ex po st fa c to co n seq u en ce s. ” (A p p ell an ts’ R ep lyB r. 1 6

. )

“ A lth o u g h th e p ro h ib iti o n s a g a in st ex pos tf acto l a ws c a n n o t b e e v a d e d ju s t b yc a lli n g a c h a n g e in law p ro c e d u ra l, onl yt he ‘ al t er at i on of a subs t ant i al r i ght ’ i s forbi dden. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . Mo lt , 758 F. 2d 1198, 1200 ( 7th C i r . 1985) ( quo ti ng W eave r , 450 U

. S. at 29 n. 12, and hol di ng thata “c hange i n t he s t andar d forbai l pendi ng appea l i s notan ex pos tf acto law ”); see al s o McKenz i e v. D ay , 5 7 F. 3 d 1 4 6 1 , 1 4 6 9 ( 9 t h Ci r . 1 995) ( M cK enzi e’ s cl ai m t hatthe s t at e vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe ex pos tf act o cl au se b ychangi ng t he pl ace and pr ocedur es a p p l i c a b l e t o h i s e x e c u t i o n i s p r e c l u d e d b y H o ld e n v . Min n e so ta , 137 U

. S. 483 ( 1890) , w hi ch st ands for t he propos i t i on t hats uch m at t ers are “r egu l at i on s that do no taff e c t [ t he p ri soner’ s] s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .” ). I n Mo lt , t he Seventh C i r cui texpl ai ned that th e p r e s u mpt i on i s agai ns tcons t rui ng a pr ocedur al change as an ex pos tf

acto l aw , and [t hat] m u st carr yt he day i n t he abs ence of a s t r ongers how i ng t han made i n t hi s cas e thatt he cha nge w orks an i ncr eas e i n puni s hm ent
. Forthough w e have been s peaki ng of the B ai l R eform A ct as i f i thad a b o lish e d th e rig h t to b a il p e n d in g a p p e a l, it d id n o su c h th in g ; itm e re ly m a d e it h a rd e r to g e t b a il pendi ng appea l

. . . T he cha nge i n t he bal ance of73 a d v a n tag e s a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n t is to o slig h t to br i ng t he cha ng e w i t hi n the s cope of t he ex po st f act o c la u s e . Mo lt , 758 F. 2d at1200. W e agr ee w i t h t he B oar d of Par dons th at the 1997 A m endmentpr es ent s no vi abl e ex p o s tf a c t o c laim b e c a u se it onl y conce r ns a cha nge i n the vot i ng pr ocedur es empl oy ed by t he Boa r d o f Pa r d o n s , a c h a n g e t h a t d o e s n o t a f f e c t t he p riso n e rs’ su b sta n tial rig h ts an d th u s o n e th a t is “ to o slig h t” to br i ng i t w i t hi n t he s cope of the E x P os tFacto C la u s e . Mo lt , 758 F. 2d at1200. B W e ar e per s uaded thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t err ed as a m att er o f law w h e n it f

a iled to g ra n t th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s M o tio n to D ism iss Plaintiffs’ ex pos t f acto c la im p u rs u a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). Fort he s ame r eas ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our t als o err ed i n gr ant i ng s u m m a r y j u d g m e n ti n f

a v o r o f t h e P e n n s yl v a n i a P r i s o n S o c i e t y. “G ener al l y , a deni al of a m ot i on t o di s m i s s does not concl us i vel ydet erm i ne anyt hi ng beca us e i tm er el y deci des t hat ques t i ons o f factr emai n t o be dec i ded. ” P an E ast ern E x p lo ra tio n C o . v. H

u fo O ils , 798 F. 2d 837, 839 ( 5th C i r . 1986) ( ci t i ng C ol em an by Lee v

. Stanz i ani , 7 3 5 F

. 2 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 0 (3d C ir

. 1984 ))

. “I f, [how ever , ] on appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , an appel l at e courtfi nds t hatt he m ot i on t o di s m i s s s houl d have be en gr ant ed, i tcan di r ectt he l ow ercour tt o di s m i s s . ” Id . at 8 4 0 ; s ee74 als o St i ns on v. Kais erG yps um C o. , 9 7 2 F

. 2 d 5 9 , 6 3 (3d C ir

. 1992) ( r ever s i ng w her e “the di s t r i ctcou rt s houl d have gr ant ed K ai s er ’ s m o ti o n t o di s m i s s bas ed on Penns y l vani a’ s tw o- y ear statu te of lim it ati o n s” a n d rem an d ing “so that itm ayd o so ”); Li ot ta v. N

at ’ lFor ge C o. , 6 2 9 F. 2 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 980) ( r ever s i ng di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr ant of s um m aryj udgm entw her e a m oti on t o di sm i ss shou l d have been grant ed and th e c a se re m a n d e d f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s); G ardn er v. T he C alver t , 253 F

. 2 d 3 9 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 5 8 ) (sam e). I V T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia Pr i s on Soc i e t ya r gu e s i n the i rc r os sap p ea l th at th e D istri ct C o u rt erred b ec au se “[ i] t d id n o t enter a decl ar at or yj udgm ent ; i tdi d notent eran i nj unct i on; i tdi d not even speci fyt o w ho m , i f any on e, i t s j ud gm ent appl i es. ( A ppel l ees ’ / C r os s - A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 48- 49. ) B as ed upon our con cl usi on t hat the C om m on w eal t h’s M oti on t o D i sm i ss P lai n ti ff s’ ex pos tf

acto c laim p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) sh o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n ted b e c a u se P lain tiff s h a v e f a iled to sta te a v iab le ex p o st fa c to cl ai m , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the P en n sy lvan ia P ri so n S o ciety ’s req u est fo r a d ec laratory j u d g m e n t a n d in

ju n c tiv e re lie f

. See Bi r col lv. Mi am i

- D ade C o u n ty , 4 8 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 8 8 n . 2 1 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (th is C o u rt m a ya f f ir m o n a n yg ro u n d s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd ).

CO NC L US I ON F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e re v erse the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the Penns y l vani a Pr i s on75 Soci ety and r emand thi s m at t er w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our ts hal l ent eran or derdi s m i s s i ng thi s act i on.