Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 324

529US1

Unit: $U40

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

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

249

Opinion of the Court

Clause, the court posited that the set of inmates affected
by the retroactive change—all prisoners serving life sen-
tences—is “bound to be far more sizeable than the set . . .
at issue in Morales”—inmates convicted of more than one
homicide.
Id., at 594. The Georgia law sweeps within its
coverage, the court continued, “many inmates who can ex-
pect at some point to be paroled,” ibid., and thus “seems
certain to ensure that some number of inmates will ﬁnd the
length of their incarceration extended in violation of the
Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution,” id., at 595.
“Eight years is a long time,” the court emphasized, and
“[m]uch can happen in the course of eight years to affect the
determination that an inmate would be suitable for parole.”
Ibid. The Court of Appeals recognized that the Parole
Board would set a new parole review date three years or
more into the future (up to eight years) only where it con-
cludes that “ ‘it is not reasonable to expect that parole would
be granted’ ” sooner.
Ibid. (quoting policy statement of Pa-
role Board). The court thought this policy insufﬁcient, how-
ever, because, unlike the statute in Morales, it does not re-
quire the Board “to make any particularized ﬁndings” and is
not “carefully tailored.” 164 F. 3d, at 594–595. The court
also recognized that the Board’s policy permitted it to recon-
sider any parole denials upon a showing of a “change in cir-
cumstance[s]” or upon the Board’s receipt of “new informa-
tion.” The court deemed the policy insufﬁcient, however,
stating that “[p]olicy statements, unlike regulations are un-
enforceable and easily changed, and adherence to them is a
matter of the Board’s discretion.”

Id., at 595.

We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1068 (1999), and we now

reverse.

II

The States are prohibited from enacting an ex post facto
law. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1. One function of the Ex
Post Facto Clause is to bar enactments which, by retroactive
operation, increase the punishment for a crime after its com-