The U.S. Supreme Court case of J. Wayne Garner, Former Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgia, et al. v. Robert L. Jones in 1999 revolved around whether a parole board's decision to deny an inmate parole was subject to judicial review under federal law for potential violations of due process rights or other constitutional protections. Robert L.Jones, a prisoner serving life sentence for murder conviction in Georgia state prison filed suit against the chairman and members of the State Board alleging that they had violated his due process rights by denying him parole without giving any reason or providing him with access to information used in making their decision. However, The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that there is no inherent constitutional right to be released before the end of a validly imposed sentence; hence decisions made by state parole boards are not required to provide reasons for denial nor are they subject to federal judicial review unless it can be shown that such decisions were arbitrary or capricious.

In the dissenting opinion for Garner v. Jones, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's ruling that a change in Georgia's parole policy did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. He argued that this decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on ex post facto laws and could potentially lead to arbitrary or vindictive legislation. In his view, any law which makes punishment for a crime more burdensome after its commission is an ex post facto law and therefore unconstitutional. The new policy extended time between parole hearings from three years to eight years, effectively increasing punishment by delaying potential release dates for inmates like Robert L. Jones who committed their crimes under old rules expecting shorter intervals between hearings.