parole

Gov. Gavin Newsom commuted the sentences of five inmates serving life without parole for murder, saying Friday that they deserve a chance at freedom after transforming their lives.

In all, the governor pardoned 23 people and commuted the sentences of 10 others. Newsom’s office said that many of those offered clemency had experienced childhood trauma and mental health struggles that impacted the choices they made.

Since he took office in 2019, Newsom has granted 247 pardons, which restore some rights to former felons, such as the ability to serve on a jury or obtain a professional license. He has also approved 160 commutations, which reduce sentences so that an inmate can appear before a parole board and potentially be released.

In this round, Newsom pardoned people convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, attempted murder and drug crimes. His office highlighted that pardons were prompted by what individuals did in the years after those convictions and were at the recommendation of elected officials, law enforcement officers and community leaders.

Among those whose sentences were commuted was Randolph Hoag, who was 28 years old in 1990 when he was convicted in Los Angeles County of murdering his girlfriend’s ex-husband. The Times reported that Hoag, a truck driver, shot Charles Sweed six times in the back before running away.

Newsom said Hoag, now 63, has “demonstrated a commitment to his rehabilitation and self-improvement” and is considered “a high medical risk based on his chronic, serious medical conditions.” Hoag will now be eligible to appear before the Board of Parole hearings, which decides whether a person is a risk to the community after considering input from victims, their families and prosecutors.

“This act of clemency for Mr. Hoag does not minimize or forgive his conduct or the harm it caused,” Newsom wrote in his order. “It does recognize the work he has done since to transform himself.”

Sweed’s sister, Cremae Sweed, became emotional Friday after learning from The Times that Hoag’s sentence was reduced. She said a prosecutor assured her that Hoag would never be released. Her brother, who had a 5-year-old daughter, served in the Marines and owned a tow truck company. Her family was never the same after his death, she said.

“My brother has been dead longer than he was alive, and [Hoag] is still alive,” she said. “He deliberately killed another man, so no, I don’t want him out, and he shouldn’t come out.”

Many of those granted clemency Friday were young adults when they committed their crimes, including Christian Rodriguez, who was 19 when he killed one victim and injured another in 1996. Rodriguez, 47, will now be eligible to appear before the parole board.

“Mr. Rodriguez has worked as both a youth offender and peer literacy mentor, and correctional officers have commended him for his leadership and rehabilitative gains,” Newsom wrote.

Others whose lengthy sentences were reduced included:

• David Fitts, who was 23 when he shot and injured one victim, while his accomplice shot and killed a second victim in 1992. Fitts was sentenced to life without parole in Los Angeles County. Newsom said Fitts, 56, has “dedicated himself to his rehabilitation” and has received commendations from correctional officers for his work ethic and good conduct.
• Karina Poncio, who was 21 when her accomplice fatally shot one person and injured another during a gang-related confrontation in 2000. She was sentenced in Orange County to life without parole. Poncio, 47, earned three associate degrees while in prison and is training to become a certified alcohol and drug specialist.
• Cleveland Lindley, who was 25 when he was convicted of a 1995 armed robbery. He was sentenced in San Bernardino County to 75 years to life for three counts of robbery and another 30 years of sentence enhancements, Newsom’s office said. In prison, Lindley, 55, participated in a service dog training program and was commended by correctional staff for his compassion, maturity and work ethic.

Citing evidence of childhood trauma, Newsom reduced the sentence of Arthur Battle, who was 18 when he and an accomplice murdered a person in a contract killing in 2006. He was sentenced in Sacramento County to life without parole plus a 25-years-to-life sentence enhancement.

Newsom’s office said Battle had adverse childhood experiences, a term used to describe a range of traumatic events that can impact a person’s physical, mental and social health.

While in prison, Battle earned his GED, took college courses and works as an aide to inmates with disabilities. Battle, 37, had his sentence commuted to 21 years to life so he can appear before the Board of Parole hearings.

Access to the parole hearings this week for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez was tightly controlled by state prison officials, but despite the efforts to limit outside interference and drama, the unexpected release of an audio recording nearly derailed Friday’s proceeding.

The disclosure of an audio recording of Erik’s parole hearing, held Thursday, tossed his older brother Lyle’s hearing into disarray the following evening.

The closely watched hearings gave the Menendez brothers a chance at freedom for the first time since they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents in Beverly Hills.

The state parole board denied a petition from Erik, 54, after an all-day session Thursday. Updates to the news media were provided by a Times reporter who was selected to observe the hearings from a conference room at California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation headquarters near Sacramento.

Audio recording of the hearing was forbidden except by state prison officials. Media organizations were prohibited from disseminating any information in so-called pool reports from the Times reporter until after the parole board issued its decision.

The same restrictions applied to Lyle’s hearing on Friday, which also ran long. But as the hearing came to a close, news broke that created a complication.

TV station ABC7 published a recording of Erik’s hearing, which apparently had been inadvertently handed over in response to a public records request.

A corrections department spokesperson confirmed the audio had been “erroneously” released, but did not elaborate or respond to additional questions from The Times.

The news report brought the hearing to a temporary halt, sparking anger, frustration and accusations that prison officials had purposely released the recording to cause a “spectacle.”

“This is disgusting,” said Tiffani Lucero Pastor, one of the brothers’ relatives who at one point screamed at the members of the parole board. “You’ve misled the family, and now to compound matters, you’ve violated this family and their rights.”

Heidi Rummel, parole attorney for both Erik and Lyle Menendez, asked for a break during the already nine hours long hearing, and at one point asked that the meeting be adjourned, arguing that it was no longer a fair hearing because of the audio’s release.

“We are sitting here asking Mr. Menendez to follow rules,” she said during the hearing. “And in the middle of this hearing, we find out CDCR is not following its own rules. It’s outrageous.”

The fate of Lyle, 57, had not yet been decided, but the board had denied Erik’s release after questioning him extensively about his use of contraband cellphones and other violations of prison rules.

“I don’t think you can possibly understand the emotion of what this family is experiencing,” Rummel said. “They have spent so much time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

The Menendez brothers first saw a chance at parole after Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to have their sentences reduced to 50 years in prison.

The move made them eligible for parole, but new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman moved to oppose the petition after he defeated Gascón in the November election. L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied Hochman’s request and found that prosecutors failed to show that the Menendez brothers were a danger to the public, clearing their path to the parole board.

The case, and the brothers’ petitions, has continued to generate nationwide attention, including a social media effort that pushed to have the Menendez brothers released in light of allegations the two were sexually abused by their father.

With the case already under a microscope, the release of the audio file created yet another roller coaster of speculation and doubt.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said that audio of the hearings could be released under the California Public Records Act, and that transcripts of the parole hearings usually become public 30 days after a decision is issued, under state law.

Rummel noted during the hearing that, as a parole attorney, she had requested audio of parole hearings in the past but the requests had been denied.

“It’s highly unusual,” she said during the hearing Friday. “It’s another attempt to make this a public spectacle.”

Rummel had objected to media access to the hearing, and implied at one point that media access had led to a “leak.”

Rummel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“It’s unacceptable,” said Maya Emig, an attorney representing Joan Vandermolen, Kitty Menendez’s sister. “There has to be notice given.”

Rummel asked whether the board also planned to release the audio of Lyle Menendez’s hearing.

“What policy allows for this to happen in this hearing but literally no other hearing?” Rummel asked the board. “It’s never been done.”

At one point, Rummel said she would be looking to seal the transcript of the hearing under Marsy’s Law, which provides rights and protections to victims of crimes.

Garland stated that audio from Friday’s hearing would not be released publicly until Rummel had the opportunity to object in court or contest its release.

Shortly after, Rummel said several relatives of the brothers had decided not to testify because of the release of the audio.

“It’s my impression from the family members that that’s not enough of an assurance,” she said.

The two-member parole board ultimately decided the audio incident would not deter them from making a ruling late Friday evening. They rejected Lyle’s request.

Both brothers will be eligible for parole in three years, but they can petition for an earlier hearing in one year.

SACRAMENTO — A day after his younger brother was denied release, Lyle Menendez also saw California parole officials reject his bid for freedom, ruling he will remain behind bars for now for the 1989 shotgun murders of his parents.

The parole board grilled Menendez, 57, over his efforts to get witnesses to lie during his trials, the lavish shopping sprees he and his brother Erik, 54, took after their parents’ killings, and whether he felt relief after the murders.

“I felt this shameful period of those six months of having to lie to relatives who were grieving,” Menendez told the board. “I felt the need to suffer. That it was no relief.”

As the elder brother, Menendez said he at times felt like the protector of Erik, but that he soon realized the murders were not the right way out of sexual abuse they were allegedly suffering at the hands of their parents.

“I sort of started to feel like I had not rescued my brother,” he said. “I destroyed his life. I’d rescued nobody.”

The closely watched hearing for Lyle Menendez, one of the most well-known inmates currently in the state’s prison system, was thrown into disarray Friday afternoon after audio of his brother’s parole hearing on Thursday was publicly released.

The audio, published by ABC 7, sparked anger and frustration from the brothers’ relatives and their attorney, who accused the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of leaking the audio and tainting Lyle’s hearing.

A CDCR spokesperson confirmed the audio was “erroneously” issued in response to a records request, but did not elaborate or immediately respond to additional questions from The Times.

“I have protected myself, I have stayed out of this, I have not had a relationship with two human beings because I was afraid, and I came here today and I came here yesterday and I trusted that this would only be released in a transcript,” said Tiffani Lucero-Pastor, a relative of the brothers. “You’ve misled the family.”

Heidi Rummel, Lyle Menendez’s parole attorney, also criticized CDCR, accusing the agency of turning the hearing into a “spectacle.”

“I don’t think you can possibly understand the emotion of what this family is experiencing,” she said. “They have spent so much time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

After the audio was published, Rummel said family members who planned to testify decided not to speak after all, and said she would be looking to seal the transcripts of Friday’s hearing.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said regulations allowed for audio to be released under the California Public Records Act. Transcripts of parole hearings typically become public within 30 days of a grant or denial, under state law.

During his first-ever appeal to the state parole board, Lyle Menendez was questioned over his credibility.

Garland referred to Menendez’s appeal to get witnesses to lie, plans to escape, and lies to relatives about the killings as a “sophistication of the web of lies and manipulation you demonstrated.”

Menendez said he had no plan at the time, there was just “a lot of flailing in what was happening.”

“Even though you fooled your entire family about you being a murderer, and you recruited all these people to help you … you don’t think that’s being a good liar?” Garland asked.

Menendez said the remorse he felt after the crimes perhaps helped create a “strong belief” he didn’t have anything to do with the killings.

Dmitry Gorin, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor, said the board’s decision denying parole was consistent with past decisions involving violent crimes.

“Although this is a high-profile case, the parole board rejecting the release demonstrates that it seeks to keep violent offenders locked up because they still pose a risk to society,” Gorin said. “Historically, the parole board does not release people convicted of murder, and this case is no different.

He called the decision a win for Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who has opposed the brothers’ release.

The brothers were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the killings of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez, but after qualifying for resentencing they gained a chance at freedom.

Many family members have supported their cause, but the gruesome crime and the brothers’ conduct behind bars led to pushback against their release.

The killings occurred after the brothers purchased shotguns in San Diego with a false identification and shot their parents in the family living room.

The bloody crime scene was compared by investigators to a gangland execution, where Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head. Evidence showed their mother had crawled, wounded, on the floor before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

The brothers reported the killings to 911, according to court records. Soon afterward, prosecutors during the trial noted, the two siblings began to spend large sums of money, including buying a Porsche and a restaurant, which was purchased by Lyle. Erik bought a Jeep and hired a private tennis instructor.

Prosecutors argued it was access to their multimillion-dollar inheritance that prompted the killing after Jose Menendez shared that he planned to disinherit the brothers.

But during the trials, the Menendez brothers and relatives testified that the two siblings had undergone years of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of their father.

In contrast to their frenzy around their trial, Thursday and Friday’s parole hearings were quiet — yet occasionally contentious — affairs.

A Times journalist was the only member of the public allowed to view the hearing on a projector screen in a room inside the agency’s headquarters outside of Sacramento.

During the Friday hearing, the parole board quickly dived into the allegations that the brothers were sexually assaulted by their father, which Lyle Menendez said confused and “caused a lot of shame in me.”

“That pretty much characterized my relationship with my father,” he said, adding that the fear of being abused left him in a state of “hyper vigilance,” even after the abuse stopped and his father began to abuse Erik.

“It took me a while to realize that it stopped,” Menendez said. “I think I was still worried about it for a long time.”

Growing up, he said, taking care of his younger brother gave him purpose, and helped to protect him from “drowning in the spiral of my own life.”

Menendez alleged his mother also sexually abused him, but said he did not share it during his comprehensive risk assessment because he “didn’t see it as abuse really.”

“Today, I see it as sexual abuse,” he said. “When I was 13, I felt like I was consenting and my mother was dealing with a lot and I just felt like maybe it wasn’t.”

Board members also questioned Lyle Menendez on why he didn’t mention the possibility they were removed from their parents’ will in their submissions to the board, but Menendez contended their inheritance was not a motive in the killings.

Instead, he said, it became “a problem afterward” as they worried they would have no money after their parents’ deaths.

“I believe there was a will that disinherited us somewhere,” he said.

The result of Thursday’s hearing means Erik can’t seek parole again for three years, a decision that left some relatives and supporters of the younger brother stunned.

“How is my dad a threat to society,” Talia Menendez, his stepdaughter, wrote on Instagram shortly after the decision was made. “This has been torture to our family. How much longer???”

In a statement issued Thursday, relatives said they were disappointed by the decision and noted that going through Lyle’s hearing Friday would be “undoubtedly difficult,” although they remained “cautiously optimistic and hopeful.”

Friends, relatives and former cellmates have touted the brothers’ lives behind bars, pointing to programs they’ve spearheaded for inmates, including classes for anger management, meditation, and helping inmates in hospice care.

But members of the board questioned both siblings about their violation of rules, zeroing in at times about repeated use of contraband cellphones.

During the hearing Friday, Lyle said he sometimes used cellphones to keep in touch with family outside the prison. But Deputy Parole Commissioner Patrick Reardon questioned this explanation, and asked why Menendez needed a cellphone if he could make legitimate calls from a prison-issued tablet.

The rule violation, board members pointed out, had resulted in Menendez being barred from family visits for three years.

Reardon pointed out that Menendez pleaded guilty to two cellphone violations in November 2024 and in March 2025. Menendez was also linked to three other violations, although another cellmate of his took responsibility for those violations.

Menendez said the violations occurred when he lived in a dorm with five other inmates, and admitted the use of cellphones was a “gang-like activity.” The group, he said, probably went through at least five cellphones.

Heidi Rummel, Menendez’s parole attorney, argued in her closing that despite the cellphone issues, Menendez had no violent incidents on his prison record.

“This board is going to say you’re dangerous because you used your cellphones,” she said. “But there is zero evidence that he used it for criminality, that he used it for violence. He didn’t even lie about it.”

But members of the board repeatedly focused on what seemed to be issues of credibility. Reardon said at times it felt like Menendez was “two different incarcerated people.”

“You seem to be different things at different times,” Reardon said during the hearing. “I don’t think what I see is that you used a cellphone from time to time. There seems to be a mechanism in place that you always had a cellphone.”

Garland asked Menendez about whether he used his position on the Men’s Advisory Council — a group meant to be a liaison on issues between inmates and prison administrators — to manipulate others and gain unfair benefits.

Menendez said the position gave him access to wall phones, and used the position to help him barter or gain favors.

Garland also pointed to an assessment that found Menendez exhibited antisocial traits, entitlement, deception, manipulation and a resistance to accept consequences.

Menendez said he had discussed those issues, but that he didn’t agree he showed narcissistic traits.

“They’re not the type of people like me self-referring to mental health,” he said, adding that he felt his father displayed narcissistic tendencies and lack of self-reflection. “I just felt like that wasn’t me.”

Menendez pointed to his work to help inmates in prison who are bullied or mocked.

“I would never call myself a model incarcerated person,” he said. “I would say that I’m a good person, that I spent my time helping people. That I’m very open and accepting.”

The parole board applauded Menendez’s work and educational history while in prison, noting he was working on a master’s degree.

Despite the violations, Menendez argued he felt he had done good work in prison.

“My life has been defined by extreme violence,” he said, tears visible on his face. “I wanted to be defined by something else.”

State parole officials had not yet publicly announced that Erik Menendez would remain behind bars, but word of the outcome was already spreading among his family members early Thursday evening.

Stunned and angry at the decision, some relatives took to social media just as news broke that Menendez, 54, had been denied parole for the 1989 shotgun murders of his parents, a grisly crime committed with his older brother, Lyle.

“How is my dad a threat to society,” Talia Menendez, his stepdaughter, wrote on Instagram. “This has been torture to our family. How much longer???”

In the all-caps post, Menendez’s daughter castigated the parole board, calling them “money hungry media feeding pieces of trash” after the decision.

“You will not have peace until my dad is free!!!!” she wrote in a following post.

A hearing for Lyle, 57, began Friday morning, leaving family members who support his case clinging to hope his ruling will be different.

Originally sentenced to life without parole, the brothers eventually qualified for resentencing because they were under 26 years old at the time of the killings.

Several petitions and legal filings went nowhere for decades, but their case received renewed attention after the popular Netflix series “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” sparked a social media interest in their case, and the sexual abuse the two siblings alleged was perpetuated by their father, Jose Menendez.

A superior court granted their resentencing petition in May, paving the way for the parole hearings this week.

More than a dozen relatives of the two brothers testified in favor of parole during the Thursday hearing for Erik Menendez, and were also expected to speak for Lyle as well.

After a nearly 10-hour hearing Thursday, Parole Commissioner Robert Barton commended the support Menendez received from his family.

“You’ve got a great support network,” he said Thursday before pointing to Erik Menendez’s repeated violation of prison rules by using a contraband cellphone. “But you didn’t go to them before you committed these murders. And you didn’t go to them before you used the cellphone.”

Erik’s wife, Tammi Menendez, blasted the decision.

“Parole Commissioner Robert Barton had his mind made up to deny Erik parole from the start!” she wrote on X. “This was a complete setup, and Erik never stood a chance!”

Anamaria Baralt, a Menendez cousin and the family spokesperson, tried to remain positive in a video posted on Instagram, noting he could re-apply for parole in three years.

“Erik was given the lowest possible denial time,” she said. “It’s disappointing. we are certainly disappointed as a family.”

However, she said she was proud of Menendez as he addressed the parole board for the first time, something the family did not view as a possibility a few years ago.

“We knew this was a steep climb,” she said in the video. “California is very rigorous in its standards. Not many people get out on parole on their first try. So it wasn’t entirely a surprise. But it is nonetheless very disappointing.”

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, a research and advocacy group that pushes for criminal justice reform, the vast majority of inmates who go before the board are denied parole.

A recent study of parole rates across the states by the Prison Policy Initiative found that 14% of parole hearings in 2022 resulted in approval.

“While we respect the decision, [Thursday’s] outcome was of course disappointing and not what we hoped for,” the Menendez family said in a statement. “But our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride. His remorse, growth, and the positive impact he’s had on others speak for themselves.”

Family, friends and cellmates have commended the two brothers for their work inside prison in the past few years, referring to them as “mentors” for other prisoners and spearheading programs inside prison walls.

Lyle Menendez spearheaded a beatification project at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, and his brother has organized artwork for the project.

The two have started programs dealing with anger management, meditation, and assisting inmates in hospice care.

But Thursday‘s hearing also aired struggles and issues the younger sibling has faced during more than three decades in prison, including drug and alcohol use, fights with other inmates, instances of being found with contraband, and allegations he helped a prison gang in a tax fraud scheme in 2013.

Members of the parole board spent several minutes in particular asking about being caught multiple times with a cellphone, which he said he used to speak with his wife, watch YouTube videos, pornography, and look for updates on his case in the media.

Menendez said he paid about $1,000 for the phones, and said he did not consider the impacts the devices could have in the prison system.

“I knew 50, 60 people that had phones,” he said Thursday. “I just justified it by saying if I don’t buy it someone else is going to buy it. The phones were going to be sold.”

It was in January that he said a lieutenant had an extended talk with him about the impacts, including how someone must smuggle the phone, how it must be paid for, how it corrupts staff, and how they can be used for more criminal activity.

Despite the connection phones provided to the outside, Menendez said, it was later that he realized the effect that using one was having on his life, now that the prospect of freedom was possible.

“In November of 2024, now the consequences mattered,” he told the board. “Now the consequences meant I was destroying my life.”

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who has opposed parole and resentencing for the two brothers, applauded the decision by the board.

“The California Board of Parole has rightly decided against granting parole to Erik Menendez,” he said in a statement. “This ruling does justice for Jose and Kitty Menendez, the victims of the brutal murders carried out by their sons on Aug. 20, 1989.”

Hochman said that, during their time in prison, the brothers have continued to claim they killed their parents in self-defense, but pointed out that their parents suffered shotgun blasts to the back and at point-blank range during the killings.

“The Board correctly determined that Erik Menendez’s actions speak louder than words, and that his conduct in prison and current mentality demonstrates that he still poses an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.”

SACRAMENTO — Erik Menendez will not be released, the California Parole board decided in a highly-anticipated and lengthy hearing Thursday, curtailing for now the contentious push by he and his older sibling to be freed after the 1989 killing of their parents in their Beverly Hills home.

The hearing came after years of legal efforts by Menendez and his brother to be set free despite being convicted of life without the possibility of parole in 1995. Their jury trial, and accounts of an abusive upbringing in the upscale Beverly Hills home, inspired several documentaries and television series that drew renewed attention to their case and allegations of sexual abuse against their father.

The hearing — the first time Erik Menendez, 54, has faced the California Parole Board — offered a never-before seen glimpse into his life behind bars over more than three decades. A separate hearing for Lyle, 57, is set for Friday.

The hearing, Erik Menendez noted, was 36 years and a day after his family realized his parents were dead. The killing occurred on Aug. 20, 1989.

“Today is the day all of my victims learned my parents were dead,” he said. “So today is the anniversary of their trauma journey.”

After a nearly 10-hour hearing, the board decided to deny parole to Menendez for three years. He could petition for an earlier hearing.

“This is a tragic case,” said Robert Barton, parole commissioner, after issuing the decision. “I agree that not only two, but four people, were lost in this family.”

Relatives, friends, and advocates have described the Menendez brothers as “model inmates,” but during the hearing Thursday members of the Parole Board raised concerns about drug and alcohol use, fights with other inmates, instances in which Erik Menendez was found with a contraband cell phone, and allegations that he helped a prison gang in a tax fraud scam in 2013.

More than a dozen relatives testified in favor of release for Menendez, with many of them saying they had forgiven him and his brother for the killing. Although amazed by the famiy’s support, Barton said Menendez should not be released on parole.

“Two things can be true,” Barton said. “they can love and forgive you and you can still be found unsuitable for parole.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for relatives of the two siblings said they were disappointed.

“Our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride,” the family said in a statement. “His remorse, growth, and the positive impact he’s had on others speak for themselves. We will continue to stand by him and hold to the hope he is able to return home soon.”

They said they remained “cautiously optimistic” for Lyle Menendez, whose hearing was set for Friday.

Menendez testified he obtained cell phones despite risking discipline because he didn’t believe there was a chance of him ever being released. He took the gamble, he said, because the “connection with the outside world was far greater than the consequences of me getting caught with the phone.”

He also associated with a gang, he said, for protection.

That all changed in 2024, he said, when he realized there was a chance be paroled at some point.

“In November of 2024, now the consequences mattered,” he told the board. “Now the consequences meant I was destroying my life.”

The crime that put Menendez and his brother in prison began when the siblings drove to San Diego, bought shotguns with cash using someone else’s identification, then returned home and opened fire in the family living room while their parents were watching television.

Investigators have said the gruesome crime scene looked like the site of a gangland execution. Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head, and evidence showed Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor, wounded, before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

The brothers called 911, with Lyle screaming that “someone killed my parents,” according to court records. But while they appeared as grieving orphans, Erik and Lyle also began spending large sums of money in the months following the killings. Lyle bought a Porsche and a restaurant while Erik purchased a Jeep and retained a private tennis instructor with the intentions of turning pro. The two were infamously seen sitting courtside at an NBA game between the murders and their capture.

Prosecutors argued the brothers killed their parents out of greed to get access to their multi-million dollar inheritance. Jose was planning to disinherit the brothers since he considered them failures, according to court filings. The brutality of the crimes and the juxtaposition of such violence against the family’s Beverly Hills image turned the case into an international media circus, only rivaled at the time by the O.J. Simpson trial.

While mobs of reporters also circled the brothers resentencing hearings in Van Nuys earlier this year, Thursday’s parole hearing was a much more solemn and quiet affair. With the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tightly controlling media access, a Times journalist was the only member of the public allowed to view the hearing on a projector screen in a room inside the agency’s headquarters just outside Sacramento.

The parole hearing is not meant to re-litigate details of the case or the brothers’ roles in the killings, but members of the board questioned Menendez Thursday on details of the grisly murders, which the brothers and supporters in their family were committed because they had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their father.

“In my mind, leaving meant death,” Menendez told the board Thursday when asked why he didn’t leave the house, or go to police. “My absolute belief that I could not get away. Maybe it sounds completely irrational and unreasonable today.”

Menendez said he and his brother purchased the shotguns because they believed their parents might try to kill them, or that his father would go to his room to rape him.

“That was going to happen,” he said. “One way or another. If he was alive, that was going to happen.”

Asked why the two killed their mother as well, Erik Menendez said the decision was made after learning she was aware of the abuse, and the siblings saw no daylight between the two.

“Step by step, my mom had shown she was united with my dad,” he said at the hearing. “On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different.”

He said the moment he found out his mother was aware of the alleged abuse was “devastating.”

“When mom told me…that she had known all of those years. It was the most devastating moment in my entire life,” he said. “It changed everything for me. I had been protecting her by not telling her.”

Asked if he believed his mother was also a victim to his father’s abuse, Erik Menendez said, “definitely.”

“He was beating her because I failed,” he said.

After denying parole, Barton pointed to their decision to kill their mother, calling it a decision “devoid of human compassion.”

“The killing of your mother especially showed a lack of empathy and reason,” Barton said. “I can’t put myself in your place. I don’t know that I’ve ever had rage to that level, ever. But that is still concerning, especially since it seems she was also a victim herself of domestic violence.”

Menendez was visibly overcome with emotion when discussing details of the murder, although he did not appear to cry.

After the murders, Menendez said the spending sprees between he and his brother, including buying a Rolex, were an “incredibly callous act.”

“I was torn between hatred of myself over what I did and wishing that I could undo it and trying to live out my life, making teenager decisions,” he said.

Erik eventually confessed to the killings in discussions with a therapist, and L.A. County sheriff’s deputies found a letter in Lyle’s jail cell admitting to the murders. After jurors hung in their first trial, Erik and Lyle Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder in 1996.

L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Habib Balian opposed parole for Menendez during the hearing, arguing he lied to the parole board and had minimized his role in the killings during the hearing.

“When one continues to diminish their responsibility for a crime and continues to make the same false excuses that they’ve made for 30-plus years, one is still that same dangerous person that they were when they shotgunned their parents,” Balian said Thursday. “Is he truly reformed, or is he just saying what wants to be heard?”

Menendez, Balian argued to the board, was still a risk to society and should not be released.

Interest in the brothers case was revived in recent years following a popular Netflix series, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.” The popular show aired after a Peacock docuseries, “Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed,” uncovered additional evidence of Jose Menendez’s alleged sexual abuse of his children and others, including Roy Rosselló, a member of the boy band Menudo.

The new evidence was part of the brothers’ most recent legal appeal in the case. More than 20 of the brothers’ relatives formed a coalition pushing for their freedom, arguing they had spent enough time imprisoned for a pair of killings that were motivated by years of horrific abuse.

Last year, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to re-sentence Erik and Lyle to 50-years-to-life in prison, making them eligible for parole. After he defeated Gascón in the November 2024 election, new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman quickly moved to oppose the re-sentencing petition, going as far as to transfer the prosecutors who authored it and asking a judge to disregard Gascón’s filing.

L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied that request. After finding prosecutors failed to prove the brothers were a danger to the public, Jesic granted the resentencing petition in May, clearing the path for Thursday’s parole hearing.

Fellow inmates and rehabilitation officials have described the two as “mentors,” spearheading programs and projects for inmates.

The two have created programs to deal with anger management, meditation, assisting inmates in hospice care and to improve conditions inside prison.

Lyle spearheaded a Rehabilitation Through Beautification project at Richard J. Donovan prison, to work on upgrades and create green space in the prison, along with painting a 1,000-foot mural. Erik has worked with other inmates to do the artwork for the project.

But members of the board questioned Menendez on various incidents, including a fight in 1997.

Menendez said another inmate hit him first, but admitted that he “acted aggressively” as well. In another fight, Menendez said he “fought back” in self-defense.

Members of the board also questioned Menendez on multiple incidents that he was found with contraband, including art supplies, candles, spray cans, and cell phones that Menendez said he would pay about $1,000 to obtain.

Some of the art supplies he used to decorate his cell, he said.

Menendez said he also gave other inmates access to the phone, because “if it was someone that I trusted or someone that I knew had a phone I didn’t want to tell him no.”

He said he used the phones to speak wiht his wife, watch YouTube videos and pornography.

“I really became addicted to the phones,” he said.

During the hearing, Barton said he was concerned about the number of support letters that refer to Menendez as a model inmate, saying it could minimize the impact of cell phones in the prison.

Menendez said it wasn’t until later that he realized the larger impact that cell phones could have, despite how prevalent they could be in prison.

“I knew of 50, 60 people that had phones,” he said. “I just justified it by saying if I don’t buy it someone else is going to buy it. The phones were going to be sold, and I longed for that connection.”

But in January, he said, he had an in-depth with a lieutenant and took a criminal thinking class that made him reassess.

“The damage of using a phone is as corrosive to a prison environment as drugs are,” he said. “In the sense that someone must bring them in, they must be paid for, it corrupts staff…phones can be used to elicit more criminal activity.”

Members of the board spent a significant amount of time questioning Menendez on the use of contraband phones, and also pointed to them as part of their reasoning in denying parole.

“Your institutional misconduct showed a lack of self awareness,” Barton said. “You’ve got a great support network. But you didn’t go to them before you committed these murders. And you didn’t go to them, before you used the cell phone.”

Dmitry Gorin, a former prosecutor, said Menendez decision to break the rules while in prison affected his chances at winning release, even though he was young when he was convicted.

“If you’re not going to comply with the rules in prison, you’re not going to comply out in society — that’s what they’re saying here,” Gorin said. “The big picture here is without serious medical issues or being elderly, I don’t know anyone who killed two people who has been paroled.”

Nancy Tetreault, an attorney for former Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, said despite public support for parole, Erik was considered moderate risk in the comprehensive risk assessment. To have a better chance at release, he would have to be considered low risk, she said.

“That’s very hard to overcome,” she said.

The two brothers were also involved in classes, but also would need to be more involved in rehabilitative programs for a favorable decision, Tereault said.

“Yes, they have a lot of classes and things like that that I was reading the classes they’ve put together, like meditation, for insight, that they’re leaving it, but they need to, they need to start programming,” she said.

Menendez admitted to drinking alcohol and briefly using heroin at one point in prison, which he said he tried because he was “miserable” and feeling hopeless.

“If I could numb my sadness with alcohol, I was going to do it,” he said. “I was looking to ease that sadness within me.”

Members of the board also asked Menendez about his connection to a prison gang and a tax fraud scam in 2013, but did not discuss details of the scheme.

Menendez said part of the reason he associated with members of the gang, known as 25s or Dos Cinco, was fear of his safety.

“When the 25ers came and asked for help, I thought this was a great opportunity to align myself with them and to survive,” Erik Menendez said, adding that he thought he needed to keep himself safe since he had no hopes of being paroled at the time. “I was in tremendous fear.”

The gang was in charge of the prison yard, he said, and a member approached him about the scheme, although Menendez said he did not personally control the checks. The gang also supplied him with marijuana, he siad.

Much changed after 2013, Erik Menendez said, and he curbed his use of drugs and alcohol. At one point, members of the gang also believed he had become an informant.

“I did not like who I was in 2013,” Erik Menendez said. “From 2013 on I was living for a different purpose. My purpose in life was to be a good person.”

In Oct. 14, 2023, his mother’s birthday, he said he committed to stop using drugs, he told the board.

Deputy Parole Commissioner Rachel Stern asked Menendez about his work with hospice inmates, including a World War II veteran convicted of an unspecified sexual violence crime that Menendez helped with getting his meals and bedding.

Menendez said he saw his work with the inmate as a way to make amends for his father.

Menendez apologized to his family during the hearing, noting their support.

“I just want my family to understand that I am so unimaginably sorry for what I have put them through,” he said. “I know they have been here for me and they’re here for me today, but I want them to know that this should be about them. It’s about them and if I ever get the chance at freedom I want the healing to be about them.

More than 35 years after murdering their parents in a volley of shotgun blasts, brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez are the closest to freedom since they were arrested and sentenced to life in prison.

The siblings — who infamously gunned down their mother and father in 1989 at the family’s Beverly Hills home — will go before a California parole board this week.

In recent years, the brothers have become a cause celebre amid mounting evidence that the slayings followed years of sexual abuse by their father.

A Los Angeles County judge agreed to resentence them earlier this year over the objections of L.A.’s top prosecutor.

Now, if the parole board finds they have been rehabilitated, the brothers could soon be sent home to reunite with the family members who have spent years fighting for their release.

But just because the brothers were resentenced doesn’t mean the parole process will be smooth sailing.

When are the hearings? Can I watch?

The brothers will each have individual hearings. Erik, 54, will go before the board at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday. The hearing for Lyle, 57, will take place at approximately the same time on Friday. Each hearing is expected to last between two and three hours, and the board will likely make a decision immediately, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Parole board hearings take place over video conference. The brothers will appear from a room in the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the brothers’ parole attorney, Heidi Rummel, will also appear remotely.

While parole hearings are a matter of public record, CDCR does not live stream the events. A Times reporter will watch the hearing live in Sacramento and publish the results immediately after.

How does a parole board hearing work? Who gets to speak?

The bulk of a parole board hearing involves the commissioners questioning the person who is seeking release from prison. But other parties play a role as well.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, or a prosecutor from his office, will be able to argue against release.

The district attorney’s office filed a 75-page “statement of view” with the parole board which details what prosecutors describe as the brothers’ “shifting stories” about the night of the murders. Such details include their attempts to arrange for an alibi and the fact that they “convincingly and repeatedly” lied to investigators and relatives that the killings must have been a mafia hit.

Hochman and his prosecutors have also attacked the idea that the brothers killed in self-defense. Despite the abuse allegations against their father, prosecutors say there is no evidence that Jose or Kitty planned to kill the brothers on the night of the murders.

Normally, the family of the victim in a case would also be able to speak against release if they so chose. However, the vast majority of Kitty and Jose Menendez’s living relatives want the brothers set free and formed a coalition to advocate for Erik and Lyle years ago. Several of them intend to speak and others have submitted letters in support of the brothers, according to Laziza Lambert, a family spokeswoman.

Milton Anderson, Kitty Menendez’s brother, was opposed to Erik and Lyle’s release but he died earlier this year. His attorney, R.J. Dreiling, said he does not have standing to take part in the hearings and it was unclear what, if any, record will be made of Anderson’s objections.

Why are the brothers eligible for parole? What factors will the parole board consider?

The brothers won their resentencing hearing in May. Former Dist. Atty. George Gascón sought to have the brothers resentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison last year, and L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic agreed because Hochman’s prosecutors could not prove that Erik and Lyle posed an unreasonable risk to the public.

Since the brothers were under the age of 26 at the time of the murders, the reduced sentence made them eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law.

The parole board must consider a wide array of factors, according to CDCR, including an applicant’s criminal history, level of self-control at the time of crime, their behavior while in prison and personal growth over that time, their post-release plans and the facts of the crime itself.

“The parole board must give great weight to the youth of the brothers at the time of the crime, and ultimately decide if they pose an unreasonable risk to public safety,” said Dmitry Gorin, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor.

While Gorin said there is a “strong case” for the brothers to receive parole, he also noted it is rare for the board to grant freedom to convicted killers, especially in a case with the level of brutality seen in the Menendez slayings. The fact that the brothers admitted to wrongdoing in the killings in open court earlier this year might aid them, according to Gorin.

The brothers could face blistering opposition from Hochman and his prosecutors, who sought to revisit the bloody crime scene time and time again during Erik and Lyle’s resentencing hearing.

“We have consistently opposed their release because they have not demonstrated full insight into their crimes or shown that they have been fully rehabilitated, and therefore continue to pose a risk to society,” the district attorney’s office said in a statement. “We will evaluate our final position based on the evidence presented at the hearing.”

The parole board can also consider any violations of CDCR rules in the brothers’ files, and some recent alleged slip-ups by Erik and Lyle have raised the eyebrows of legal experts.

“They have serious rule violations, including fights, including not coming in from the yards when they were told to. That doesn’t sound that bad, but it can be, depends on what they were doing in the yard,” said Nancy Tetrault, who successfully represented Leslie Van Houten, a devout follower of Charles Manson, before the parole board in 2023.

Tetrault also noted that the brothers have been caught with cell phones behind bars, a violation of prison rules that could be problematic for the parole board.

“It’s a very serious rule violation,” she said. “Why? Because that is the connection to criminality outside of prison.”

Both Gorin and Terault said it is unlikely that the board would render different decisions each day. Given they are accused of the same crime, the results of Erik’s hearing on Thursday will likely forecast what happens to Lyle 24 hours later.

What happens after the decision?

If the parole board grants release for one or both brothers, Gov. Gavin Newsom will have the right to review or reject the decision within 120 days. While Newsom hasn’t publicly commented on the case — and has separately considered granting the brothers’ clemency — his track record on high-profile parole cases doesn’t bode well for the brothers.

When the parole board granted release for Sirhan Sirhan — the man convicted of assassinating Robert F. Kennedy in downtown Los Angeles — Newsom overruled them. The governor also overruled the parole board multiple times when they sought to release Van Houten, though his decision was eventually thrown out by a California appeals court.

Newsom declined through a spokeswoman to comment before the hearing on whether he believed the brothers should be released.

If the board denies the brothers, a new hearing can be set anytime within the next three to 15 years. Applicants can petition for a new hearing earlier than that if they argue the circumstances of their case have changed.

“For example, if they completed, you know, an intense class on inside or something like that, and they think that they deserve to be heard within a year,” Tetrault said.

Newsom could also refer the decision to the entire state parole board for a second opinion, as he did in the case of convicted killer Stephanie Lazarus, a former LAPD detective.

The brothers would still have other paths to freedom even without parole. Newsom could still grant them clemency, and a motion for a new trial is still working its way through the legal system.

Proposition 89 is expected to win hands down. After all, so the reasoning goes, who is going to vote against a measure designed to keep murderers in prison?

Supporters and opponents alike predict a landslide victory Nov. 8 for the proposed state constitutional amendment that would give the governor the authority to cancel paroles granted to murderers.

Even the lineup of names on the official ballot arguments looks like a mismatch.

Listed in favor of the proposition are the politically powerful, or at least the well-connected: Gov. George Deukmejian, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord) and Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres).

There are a number of opponents of the measure, but the only one listed on the sample ballot is a Roman Catholic priest, Father Paul W. Comiskey, general counsel for an organization called the Prisoners Rights Union–not a name likely to reassure the mass of California voters in these days of fear.

Boatwright–who authored the legislative constitutional amendment and considers it a “measure of safety”–is predicting an 80% voter approval rate.

Comiskey, who says the amendment would politicize parole decisions, rates chances of defeating the measure as about equal to those of a “snowball in hell.”

Proposition 89 would give the governor 30 days in which to review decisions of state adult and youth parole boards regarding the release of prisoners serving life sentences for murder with the possibility of parole. In deciding whether to affirm, modify or reverse a parole board decision, the governor would be limited under the measure to considering only those factors that had been considered by the parole authorities. The measure would also require the governor to report to the state Legislature the pertinent facts of each parole decision reviewed.

This legislative initiative is not new. It has been floundering in the Legislature since 1983, born of the public furor over the release from prison of William Archie Fain, who was serving a life term for the 1967 shotgun murder of a teen-age boy in Stanislaus County, as well as the rape of two teen-age girls and a 43-year-old housewife. After Deukmejian found he could not legally cancel Fain’s parole, Boatwright introduced the legislative amendment to give the governor such authority in future cases.

But the measure languished in the Assembly Public Safety Committee until this year, said Boatwright, when pressure from the dissident “Gang of Five” Democrats (who oppose the leadership of Democratic Speaker Willie Brown of San Francisco) helped to give it a “fair hearing.”

The measure was overwhelmingly passed by both the Senate and the Assembly, and was placed on the Nov. 8 ballot. The proposition’s chances certainly were not hurt earlier this year when Fain, inspiration for the proposed amendment, was charged with a brutal attempted rape in Alameda County. He has pleaded not guilty.

Comiskey argues that the parole of Fain is a false issue because the convict’s release date had been set by the parole board years before Deukmejian became involved in the controversy and the proposed amendment would have given the governor only 30 days to reverse the decision from the day the release date was set.

If passed, Proposition 89 would seem not only to allow a conservative governor to reverse a decision granting a parole to a murderer, but would also allow a more liberal governor to grant such a release over the objections of a parole board.

But Boatwright argues that the governor already possesses the authority to commute a prisoner’s sentence and says that his amendment would provide the counterbalancing authority to prevent a release.

It would “provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens,” says a ballot argument by Deukmejian and Boatwright.

Fears Politicization

“Proposition 89 will politicize decisions about whether to grant or deny parole,” insists Comiskey in his ballot argument.

“I think it’s going to invite lawlessness in this whole area,” he told The Times. “It will result in a very chilling effect on anybody getting out on parole.”

“Boatwright has always been a convict-basher,” Comiskey said. “He’s a bully. He picks on people inside prisons.”

Boatwright eagerly embraced the accusation.

“I don’t like prisoners,” he proclaimed. “I was a deputy district attorney, and I saw what these people did to innocent families. And you’re right, I don’t like them.”

The Prisoners Rights Union is joined in its opposition to the measure by such diverse groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn.

“The governor appoints all parole board members,” said Susan Cohen, executive director of the Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn. “And now this initiative seems to be a way to second-guess them. . . .

“This (amendment) does not reflect a professional point of view,” she continued. “Now you’re going to have a . . . politician . . . making decisions on who should or shouldn’t get out of prison.”

Boatwright counters that he is not concerned about the actions of the current parole authorities, most of whom have law enforcement backgrounds and all of whom were appointed by Deukmejian. It is what future parole boards might do that worries Boatwright.

“Basically it’s not necessary for now,” he said. “We’re looking out for a future situation where we might have a parole board that leans more to the defendant than to the public.”

But one of Boatwright’s ballot arguments in favor of Proposition 89 implicitly criticizes Deukmejian’s adult parole board for being too lenient.

“First-degree murderers who were paroled last year,” complains the ballot argument, “averaged less than 14 years in state prison.”

Despite the implicit criticism, the nine-member adult parole board–officially called the Board of Prison Terms–has endorsed the measure allowing the governor to reverse its decisions.

“I think the board feels that the governor has a right to review the board’s work,” said Robert Patterson, executive director of the Board of Prison Terms. “And I think the board feels the governor will approve of the actions taken by the board. . . . I don’t think he’ll ever have to use this law.”

Patterson pointed to figures from the second quarter of this year showing that board members had granted parole dates to only 2.5% of the 221 convicts who went before them. He said that murderers who were released last year with less than 14 years served had been imprisoned under a seven-years-to-life sentencing structure that was replaced by a ballot measure in 1982.

That measure requires first-degree murderers to serve 25 years to life and second-degree killers to serve 15 years to life. The minimum terms in both sentences can be reduced by work time and good behavior.

There are currently about 6,400 adult prisoners serving first- and second-degree terms in California, Patterson said. He did not know how many were sentenced under the new more stringent terms.

Parolee Murders

The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 89 also maintains that since 1978 in Sacramento County, eight paroled murderers killed new victims.

But Cohen of the parole and probation officers association contends that the constitutional amendment would have had no effect on those paroles unless they involved highly publicized cases.

“They only would have been kept in if there was some reason to draw them to the attention of the public to begin with,” she said. “If nothing in that wheel was squeaking, nothing would have prevented the release.”

WHAT PROPOSITION 89 WOULD DO Proposition 89 PAROLE REVIEW

Main Sponsor: Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord).

Other Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres).

Opponents: Father Paul W. Comiskey, SJ, general counsel for the Prisoners Rights Union; the American Civil Liberties Union, and the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn.

Key provisions of Proposition 89:

The proposition would amend the state Constitution to allow the governor 30 days in which to review decisions of state adult and youth parole boards regarding the release of prisoners serving life sentences for murder with the possibility of parole. In deciding whether to affirm, modify or reverse a parole board decision, the governor would be limited under the measure to considering only those factors that had been considered by the parole authorities. The measure also would require the governor to report the pertinent facts of each parole decision reviewed to the state Legislature.

The ruling means people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua can be targeted for deportation as lawsuits continue.

The conservative-dominated United States Supreme Court has handed President Donald Trump another major victory, allowing his administration to revoke a temporary legal status from more than 500,000 immigrants as legal challenges continue in lower courts.

Friday’s decision applies to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan people who were granted humanitarian parole under the administration of former President Joe Biden.

That parole status allowed them to enter the US due to emergencies or urgent humanitarian reasons, including instability, violence and political repression in their home countries.

But the Supreme Court’s ruling means that the beneficiaries of humanitarian parole could be targeted for deportation prior to a final ruling on whether the revocation of their immigration status is legal.

The ruling by the top court, which is dominated six-to-three by conservatives, reverses a lower court’s order temporarily halting the Trump administration from yanking humanitarian parole from Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unsigned and did not provide reasoning. However, two liberal justices on the panel publicly dissented.

The outcome “undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending”, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote.

She noted that some of the affected individuals had indicated in court filings that they would face grave harm if their humanitarian parole were cut short.

Trump has targeted programmes like humanitarian parole as part of his efforts to limit immigration into the US. His administration has accused Biden of “broad abuse” in his invocation of humanitarian parole: Trump has said Biden was lax on immigration and oversaw an “invasion” of the US from abroad.

Since taking office in January, Trump’s administration has also indefinitely suspended applications for asylum and other forms of immigration relief.

The plaintiffs in Friday’s humanitarian parole case warned the Supreme Court they could face life-threatening conditions if they were not allowed to seek other avenues for immigration and were forced to leave the country.

If they were deported “to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled”, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that “many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death”.

Earlier in May, the Supreme Court also allowed Trump to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — another temporary immigration pathway — for about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US. TPS allows non-citizens to remain in the US while circumstances in their home countries remain unsafe or unstable.

As with Friday’s case, the Supreme Court’s ruling on TPS allowed the Trump administration to move forward with removals while a legal challenge to Trump’s policy plays out in lower courts.

Biden had encouraged the use of programmes like TPS and humanitarian parole as alternatives to undocumented immigration into the US.

Humanitarian parole, for instance, allowed recipients to legally live and work in the US for two years. Trump’s efforts to end the programme would cut that timeframe short.

The countries in question — Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti — have all experienced significant economic and political crises in recent years.

In Venezuela, for instance, critics have accused President Nicolas Maduro of detaining and disappearing political dissidents and activists, and an economic collapse caused hyperinflation that put basic necessities beyond the means of many Venezuelans. Millions have fled the country in recent years.

One of the other countries, Haiti, has been ravaged by a spike in gang violence since the assassination of President Jovenal Moise in 2021. Federal elections have not been held since, and gangs have used violence to fill the power vacuum.

As much as 90 percent of the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, has fallen under gang control, according to the United Nations, and thousands have been killed.

WASHINGTON — President Trump may seek to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants who recently entered the United States under a two-year grant of parole, the Supreme Court decided Friday.

Over two dissents, the justices granted an emergency appeal and set aside rulings by judges in Boston who blocked Trump’s repeal of the parole policy adopted by the Biden administration.

That 2023 policy opened the door for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to apply for entry and a work authorization if they had a financial sponsor and could pass background checks. By the time Biden left office, 530,000 people from those countries had entered the U.S. under the program.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“The court plainly botched this,” Jackson said, adding that it should have kept the case on hold during the appeals.

It was the second time in two weeks that the justices upheld Trump’s authority to revoke a large-scale Biden administration policy that gave temporary legal status to some migrants.

The first revoked program gave temporary protected status to around 350,000 Venezuelans who were in this country and feared they could be sent home.

The parole policy allowed up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries to enter the country with temporary legal protection. Biden’s officials saw it as a way to reduce illegal border crossings and to provide a safe and legal pathway for carefully screened migrants.

The far-reaching policy was based on a modest-sounding provision of the immigration laws. It says the secretary of Homeland Security may “parole into United States temporarily … on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons any alien” who is seeking admission.

Upon taking office, Trump ordered an end to “all categorical parole programs.” In late March, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the parole protection would end in 30 days.

But last month, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked DHS’s “categorical” termination of the parole authority. The law said the government may grant parole on a “case-by-case basis,” she said, and that suggests it must be revoked on a case-by-case basis as well.

On May 5, the 1st Circuit Court in a 3-0 decision agreed that a “categorical termination” of parole appeared to be illegal.

Three days later, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed another emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing that a judge had overstepped her authority.

The parole authority is “purely discretionary” in the hands of the DHS secretary, he wrote, and the law bars judges from reviewing those decisions.

While the Biden administration “granted parole categorically to aliens” from four counties, he said the Boston-based judges blocked the new policy because it is “categorical.”

He accused the judges of “needlessly upending critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core Executive Branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.”

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the court to stand aside for now.

Granting the administration’s appeal “would cause an immense amount of needless human suffering,” they told the court.

They said the migrants “all came to the United States with the permission of the federal government after each individually applied through a U.S. financial sponsor, passed security and other checks while still abroad, and received permission to fly to an airport here at no expense to the government to request parole.”

“Some class members have been here for nearly two years; others just arrived in January,” they added.

In response, Sauer asserted the migrants had no grounds to complain. They “accepted parole with full awareness that the benefit was temporary, discretionary, and revocable at any time,” he said.

The Biden administration began offering temporary entry to Venezuelans in late 2022, then expanded the program a few months later to people from the other three countries.

In October of last year, the Biden administration announced that it would not offer renewals of parole and directed those immigrants to apply to other forms of relief, such as asylum or temporary protected status.

It’s unclear exactly how many people remained protected solely through the parole status and could now be targeted for deportation. It’s also not clear whether the administration will seek to deport many or most of these immigrants.

But parolees who recently tried to adjust their legal status have hit a roadblock.

In a Feb. 14 memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it was placing an administrative hold on all pending benefit requests filed by those under the parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, as well as a program for Ukrainians and another for family reunification.

The memo said USCIS needed to implement “additional vetting flags” to identify fraud, public safety or national security concerns.

“It’s going to force people into an impossible choice,” said Talia Inlender, deputy director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. Those who stay face potential detention and deportation, she said, while those who willingly leave the U.S. would be giving up on their applications.

The DHS memo said the government could extend the parole for some of them on a case-by-case basis. But Trump’s lawyers said migrants who were here less than two years could be deported without a hearing under the “expedited removal” provisions of the immigration laws.

Inlender said the government should not be allowed to strip people of lawfully granted legal status without sufficient reason or notice. Inlender, who defended the program against a challenge from Texas in 2023, said she expects swift individual legal challenges to the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal.

“So many people’s lives are on the line,” Inlender said. “These people did everything right — they applied through a lawful program, they were vetted. And to pull the rug out from under them in this way should be, I think, offensive to our own idea of what justice is in this country.”

The resentencing hearing for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez kicked off Tuesday morning with emotional testimony from family members, one of whom testified in court that they should be freed from prison for the shotgun killing of their parents more than 30 years ago.

Annmaria Baralt, often wiping away her tears, testified that the relatives of victims Jose and Kitty Menendez want a judge to give the brothers a lesser sentence than life without parole for the 1989 murders inside their Beverly Hills mansion.

“Yes, we all on both sides of the family say 35 years is enough,” she told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic in a Van Nuys courtroom. “They are universally forgiven by both sides of their families.”

Baralt, whose mother was Jose Menendez’s older sister, said the family had endured decades of pain from the scrutiny of the murders.

“From the day it happened… it has been a relentless examination of our family in the public eye,” she said, beginning to cry. “It has been torture for decades.” She said the family was the butt of repeated jokes on “Saturday Night Live” and lived like outcasts who wore a “scarlet M.”

The Menendez brothers have been in prison for more than 35 years after being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in the gruesome 1989 murders. The brothers bought shotguns with cash and opened fire as their mother and father watched a movie. Jose Menendez was shot five times, including in the kneecaps and the back of the head. Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor, wounded, before one of the brothers reloaded and fired a fatal blast, jurors heard at their two trials.

On the stand Tuesday, Baralt echoed the brothers’ justification for killing their parents — saying it was out of fear their father was going to kill them to cover up his past sexual abuse of the boys.

She told the judge that she believes they have changed and are “very aware of the consequences of their actions.”

“I don’t think they are the same people they were 30 years ago,” she said.

If Jesic agrees to resentence them, the brothers would become eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law, since the murders happened when they were under 26. If the judge sides with Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, they would still have a path to freedom through Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is weighing a clemency petition. Regardless, Erik and Lyle would still have to appear before the state parole board before they could walk free. Jesic on Tuesday emphasized that the bar to keep them from being resentenced is high, and that they would have to still pose a serious danger to the public.

Prosecutor Habib Balian spent the morning trying to punch holes in the brothers’ relatively clean reputations they’ve gotten behind bars.

Under cross-examination, Baralt admitted that she never thought her cousins were capable of killing their parents until they’d done it, and that prior to their criminal trial decades ago, Lyle Menendez had asked a witness to lie for him on the stand.

Nearly two dozen of the brothers’ relatives, including several who testified Tuesday, formed the Justice for Erik and Lyle Coalition to advocate for their release as interest in the case reignited in recent years. The release of a popular Netflix documentary on the murder, which included the unearthing of additional documentation of Jose Menendez’s alleged sexual abuse, helped fuel a motion for a new trial.

The family has become increasingly public in its fight for Erik and Lyle’s release after Hochman opposed his predecessor’s recommendation to re-sentence them. They have repeatedly accused Hochman of bias against the brothers, called for him to be disqualified from the case and alleged he intimidated and bullied them during a private meeting. Hochman has denied all accusations of bias and wrongdoing, and says he simply disagrees with their position.

Kitty Menendez’s brother, Milton, was the only member of the family opposed to Erik and Lyle’s release, but he died earlier this year. Kathy Cady, who served as his victims’ rights attorney, is now the head of Hochman’s Bureau of Victims’ Services, another point of aggravation for the relatives fighting for the brothers release.