The U.S. Supreme Court case Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correction Complex (1978) revolved around whether inmates have a constitutional right to parole. The plaintiffs, inmates in Nebraska's penal system, argued that they had an inherent due process right to be paroled under the Fourteenth Amendment unless there was evidence indicating they would engage in criminal activity upon release. They claimed that Nebraska’s parole statute created a presumption of release which could only be denied for specific reasons outlined by law, thus creating a liberty interest protected by Due Process Clause. However, the court ruled against them with 5-3 majority decision stating that while states may establish systems for parole and determine conditions for eligibility, this does not equate to guaranteeing or creating an entitlement to it; hence no constitutional rights were violated when their applications were denied without detailed explanation as long as minimum procedural safeguards are met.

In the dissenting opinion of Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correction Complex, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that inmates do not have a constitutional right to parole. He argued that when a state creates a system for conditional release from prison, it establishes an expectation of freedom which is protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This means any decision about parole should be subject to procedural safeguards such as notice and opportunity for hearing before denial. Furthermore, he contended that there was no meaningful distinction between denying parole and revoking it once granted - both actions deprive an individual of their expected liberty interest in being released from incarceration on meeting certain conditions set by law or policy. Therefore, he believed the Court erred in holding otherwise based on arbitrary distinctions rather than principles rooted in constitutional rights.