Bailey v. Fulwood, Jr., No. 13-5177 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Appellant challenged the Parole Commission's denial of his 2010 and 2012 applications for parole, alleging that the Commission violated the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto
laws by incorrectly applying the regulations in place at the time of appellant’s underlying
offense. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed, finding that the Commission's denial of appellant’s requests for parole was a valid
exercise of parole authority as it existed at the time of his offense. The court further concluded that the Commission did not rely on the retroactive application of any law, regulation, or guideline to justify its decisions, and therefore could not have violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.