Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 332

529US1

Unit: $U40

[10-04-01 09:23:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 244 (2000)

257

Scalia, J., concurring in part in judgment

ing inmates’ requests for early review. See 514 U. S., at
for Petitioner, O. T. 1994,
512–513 (citing Reply Brief
No. 93–1462, p. 3, n. 1). The policy statement here, by con-
trast, is a formal, published statement as to how the Board
intends to enforce its Rule.
It follows a fortiori from Mo-
rales that the Court of Appeals should not have disregarded
the policy. Absent any demonstration to the contrary from
respondent, we respect the Board’s representation that in-
mates, upon making a showing of a “change in their circum-
stance[s]” or upon the Board’s receipt of “new information,”
may request expedited consideration. App. 56.

The Court of Appeals’ analysis failed to reveal whether the
amendment to Rule 475–3–.05(2), in its operation, created
a signiﬁcant risk of increased punishment for respondent.
Respondent claims he has not been permitted sufﬁcient dis-
covery to make this showing. The matter of adequate dis-
covery is one for the Court of Appeals or, as need be, for the
District Court in the ﬁrst instance. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia, concurring in part in the judgment.

I would agree with the Court’s opinion if we were faced
with an amendment to the frequency of parole-eligibility de-
terminations prescribed by the Georgia Legislature. Since
I do not believe, however, that a change in frequency pre-
scribed by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles
(Board) would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause even if
it did pose a sufﬁcient “risk” of decreasing the likelihood
of parole, I would reverse the decision of the Eleventh Cir-
cuit without the necessity of remand.

The Court treats this case as a mere variation on the Mo-
rales theme, whereas in reality it contains a critical differ-
ence: In Morales, the frequency of parole suitability hearings
had been ﬁxed by law, and a legislative change had given