In re: Adkins (Petition for Habeas Corpus)

We’re challenging the governor’s authority to reverse parole as a violation of the rights of young people.

In 2025, the National ACLU and ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court arguing that the California governor’s power to veto grants of parole violates the rights of young people. After the Superior Court denied our petition, we filed in the California Court of Appeal in October 2026.

Under California law, young people have the right to a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release [on parole] based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” That right, codified by the California Legislature and protected under the U.S. and California Constitutions, reflects scientific consensus that young people have reduced culpability for their conduct and greater capacity for change than adults.

Individuals who are incarcerated in California and were 25 years old or younger at the time of their life-crime are given the opportunity to demonstrate their maturity and rehabilitation to the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Parole Board”). The Parole Board is responsible for evaluating whether these individuals should be granted parole based on evidence presented during parole suitability hearings. If an individual establishes that they have matured and are rehabilitated, the law requires the Parole Board to grant them parole. However, California is one of only two states that imposes another hurdle for young people to have a second chance at freedom, allowing the governor the power to veto—or reverse—grants of parole by the Parole Board.

Unsurprisingly, California governors routinely exercise this veto power in high-profile, politically toxic cases, like those of the members of the Manson family or 81-year-old Sirhan Sirhan. From 2011 through 2025, California governors reversed at least 340 grants of parole for individuals who were 25 or younger at the time of their life-crime. These reversals account for at least 40% of all parole reversals during that 15-year period. Our client, David, in this case was also convicted of a high-profile offense that garnered considerable negative publicity. It was little surprise then that the Governor vetoed the grant of parole in this case. The veto was evidently for political reasons, given that David’s record unmistakably demonstrates rehabilitation over 30 plus years in prison—a fact the Parole Board verified by finding him suitable for release prior to the Governor’s veto.

Our lawsuit alleges that the California Governor violated our client’s right to a “meaningful opportunity for release” by vetoing David’s grant of parole and argues that the governor’s veto power over Parole Board decisions should be abolished due to the unacceptably high risk that parole reversals are grounded in a governor’s political calculations, rather than public safety.

As our client, David, proves, children are so much more than the worst thing they’ve ever done. Their redemption must be recognized and not reduced to a matter of politics. Anything less would deprive them of their right to return home as mature, responsible community members.