The California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) has quietly granted itself the authority to review and approve the release of prisoners sentenced to life without parole (LWOP), a move that critics say could free some of the state’s most dangerous criminals—including mass shooters and baby killers. The new rule was approved on July 9 by the state’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL), whose director, Kenneth J. Pogue, was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019.
The decision has sparked outrage among victims’ rights groups and former prosecutors, who argue that the parole board overstepped its legal bounds and is attempting to rewrite sentencing laws enacted by voters. Anne Marie Schubert, president and CEO of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and a former district attorney, called the move an “administrative bureaucratic agency trying to rewrite the legislature.”
Board’s New Authority
According to the rule approved in July, the BPH can now conduct hearings and recommend clemency for inmates serving LWOP—a sentence that was previously considered final and non-reviewable. The board had previously only had the power to make recommendations in certain cases, but the new regulation expands that authority into a full system of reviews and hearings.
Schubert told Fox News that the change could make eligible for release individuals like a Fresno mass shooter who killed 10 people in the early 1990s and pleaded to life without parole. She also highlighted the case of a father who tortured and killed his six-week-old baby over a weeklong period—an act captured on video—as the type of offender who could now potentially seek release.
Legal Challenge Filed
Schubert’s organization has filed a lawsuit against the parole board, arguing that the rule violates the will of California voters. The lawsuit points to Marsy’s Law, Proposition 9 of 2008, which was designed to curb the suffering of crime victims and their families by limiting parole hearings. The suit also notes that initiative statutes mandate life without parole as the minimum sentence for first-degree murder with special circumstances and forbid striking those circumstances.
The legal challenge contends that the board’s unilateral action is illegal because it attempts to override judicial sentences and legislative intent. “They don’t have the legal authority to do this,” Schubert said, emphasizing that the board is not a legislative body.
Political Backlash
The move has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives and law-and-order advocates, who see it as another example of California’s progressive criminal justice policies going too far. “Why would any rational person want to unleash the worst of the worst back onto the streets?” asked one commentary. “Why would any decent person want to remove the certainty of LWOP from victims’ families only to introduce them to the hell of reliving the crime every time they’re forced to testify at a parole hearing?”
Critics argue that the rule could impact victims’ families who have already endured the trauma of losing loved ones to violent crime, forcing them to repeatedly relive those horrors during parole hearings.
Supporters’ Perspective
Proponents of criminal justice reform have long argued that LWOP sentences are overly harsh and that even those convicted of serious crimes deserve a chance at rehabilitation. However, the parole board’s action has not been publicly accompanied by any statement from Newsom’s office, and it remains unclear whether the governor supports the change.
The OAL’s approval of the rule means it took effect immediately, unless the lawsuit succeeds in blocking it. The case will likely hinge on whether the board has the statutory authority to expand its own powers in this way.
For now, the future of LWOP in California hangs in the balance, as victims’ families and criminal justice advocates await the court’s decision.
Source: www.breitbart.com — https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2026/08/11/nolte-gavin-newsom-appointee-okays-overturning-life-without-parole-in-democrat-run-california/