The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Tuesday requiring the State Parole Board to revise regulations that categorically deny inmates access to their own psychological reports and medical records used in parole release decisions.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the court, held that N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2 violates settled constitutional principles because its plain language bars disclosure in all cases without exception. The ruling comes after the Office of the Public Defender petitioned the Parole Board to amend the regulation to allow parole-seeking inmates access to these critical records.
The case, *In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to Amend N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11*, was argued in September 2025 and decided Jan. 14, 2026. The Office of the Public Defender argued that the current rule restricts inmates' access to their mental health records and deviates from due process requirements established in *Thompson v. State Parole Board* (App. Div. 1986).
The State Parole Board had denied the petition, asserting that in practice, the agency follows constitutional standards when deciding whether individual requests for records should be granted. However, the supreme court found this practice-based approach insufficient given the regulation's absolute language.
The court acknowledged legitimate concerns about disclosure, noting there are "valid reasons not to disclose records in particular cases to ensure safety and security at correctional institutions and to avoid interfering with an inmate's rehabilitation." The opinion referenced the *Thompson* decision, which recognized these institutional safety considerations.
However, the court distinguished between case-by-case determinations based on specific circumstances and categorical prohibitions. The justices found that because the plain language of N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2 bars disclosure in all cases without exception, it violates constitutional principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision builds on federal precedent regarding due process rights in administrative proceedings. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that when state law grants a sufficient expectation of liberty, procedural due process protections apply to parole decisions.
The case represents a significant victory for inmate rights advocates who have long argued that access to records used in parole determinations is essential for meaningful participation in the process. The Office of the Public Defender contended that inmates cannot adequately prepare for parole hearings or challenge adverse decisions without access to the psychological evaluations and medical records that influence board members.
The Appellate Division had previously upheld the Parole Board's denial of the petition before the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The high court granted the Office of the Public Defender's petition for certification, limiting review specifically to the request to amend Rule 2.2.
The unanimous nature of the decision suggests broad judicial agreement that categorical restrictions on record access cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny, even when balanced against legitimate institutional concerns. The court's reasoning indicates that any restrictions must be tailored to specific circumstances rather than applied as blanket prohibitions.
Practically, the ruling will require the State Parole Board to revise its regulations to create a framework for evaluating disclosure requests on a case-by-case basis. This approach would allow the board to protect institutional security and rehabilitation goals while ensuring inmates receive the due process protections required by the Constitution.
The decision affects thousands of New Jersey inmates who seek parole annually. Access to psychological reports and medical records could provide inmates with crucial information about how parole boards assess their readiness for release and what factors weigh against them.
For correctional institutions, the ruling means developing new procedures for handling disclosure requests while maintaining necessary security protocols. The decision suggests that blanket restrictions will no longer suffice, requiring more individualized assessments of potential risks.
The court's emphasis on constitutional principles over administrative convenience reflects broader trends in prisoner rights litigation, where courts increasingly scrutinize categorical restrictions that may violate due process requirements.
Moving forward, the State Parole Board must craft new regulations that balance transparency with legitimate security concerns. The ruling provides a framework for this balance but leaves implementation details to the administrative process.
The decision also may influence parole practices in other states with similar categorical restrictions on inmate access to records used in release decisions. As courts nationwide grapple with balancing institutional security against constitutional rights, the New Jersey Supreme Court's analysis provides guidance for resolving these competing interests.
The Office of the Public Defender's successful challenge demonstrates the ongoing importance of advocacy organizations in protecting inmate rights and ensuring that administrative regulations comply with constitutional requirements.