The case examines whether revoking parole without a hearing violates due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that a hearing is not required for parole revocation, citing the discretion of prison officials and the role of parole as a correctional device. However, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of understanding the role of parole in the correctional process before determining whether due process applies to the parole system. Parole is a tool for reintegrating convicted criminals into society and reducing the costs of imprisonment, and parolees are subject to specific conditions beyond ordinary legal restrictions. The decision to revoke parole requires expertise and prediction, and depends on accurate information about the violations. If a violation is found, the decision to recommit the parolee to prison or take other measures requires discretion.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall held that revoking a parolee's parole requires due process, including a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause and a final hearing to determine the violation and whether to revoke parole. The parolee has the right to notice, an opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. The decision-maker must be impartial, maintain a record, and provide a written reason with supporting evidence. The parolee has the right to retain an attorney, but it is unclear if they must be provided one if they cannot afford it.

This case involves petitioners whose paroles were revoked without a hearing or the chance to challenge the facts. They challenged the revocation in state and federal courts, arguing that parole confers a degree of liberty associated with property interests and cannot be revoked without due process. The Supreme Court must determine whether parole is a right or a privilege that can be summarily revoked. The case also involves the application of the Goldberg v. Kelly decision, which held that a state cannot stop giving public assistance payments to someone without first giving them a chance to defend themselves at a hearing, as a violation of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case establishes that the termination of public assistance benefits is subject to constitutional restraints and that paroling prisoners is part of the rehabilitative aim of the correctional philosophy, and the status of a parolee is an important right that is subject to due process protections. The case criticizes Iowa's rule, which allows revocation proceedings to proceed solely on the parole agent's word, resulting in petitioners serving additional years in prison without adequate explanation or evaluation of the charges against them. The case emphasizes that the fairness implicit in due process requires that the parolee be given an opportunity to explain and that the charges against them be evaluated based on more than just the word of the parole agent.