The New Jersey Supreme Court said in a reversal Wednesday that the state's parole board cannot bar the disclosure to inmates of medical, psychiatric and psychological records used to determine their parole eligibility, finding that withholding this information from them is unconstitutional and against state law.

In a unanimous opinion, the state's highest court said it was unpersuaded by the parole board's argument that it was disclosing medical records to inmates in accordance with constitutional principles, regardless of the text in the state's administrative code.

"A rule that is unconstitutional on its face cannot stand based on representations about how it is applied in practice," wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner for the court, siding with the New Jersey Public Defender's Office, which challenged the rule.

The court said it understood that there were valid reasons not to disclose certain records in cases where safety and security were a factor, or in instances where such disclosure could interfere with rehabilitation. "But because the plain language of Rule 2.2 bars disclosure in all cases, we find that it violates settled constitutional principles," the court wrote.

Parole is not a right of all prisoners, the New Jersey court explained. However, it added that the U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1979 that, when parole decisions were being made, prisoners had the right to some constitutional protections.

In 1986, on the heels of that determination, a New Jersey appeals court decided in Thompson v. State Parole Board, that inmates had the right to information that was used to determine their parole eligibility, finding that while certain information could be withheld, a full blackout was unacceptable.

In Thompson, the court found that state rules put in place in 1980 were sufficient to protect inmate interests, however those rules were modified in 2012, deleting provisions that were crucial to ensuring state precedent set in Thompson was followed, according to the opinion.

The current rule "provides inmates with more limited access to their records than the version Thompson approved," the court said. It "treats all medical, psychiatric, and psychological records as confidential."

And by doing this, the present regulation "imposes a categorical bar against disclosure of documents that the board can — and in some cases does — rely on during the parole process," the court said.

In an amicus filing, the court said the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall University School of Law argued that the present New Jersey rule "sanctions the per se denial of psychological and medical records to individuals seeking parole," violating due process.

Though the parole board said it was following state and federal laws, the court said it was "concerned — just as the appellate division was — that no advocate could recall a single instance when the board granted disclosure without a court order issued after parole had been denied."

The court said that allowing the rule to remain as is was not an option, because inmates who often go through the parole process without legal assistance would read the rule as it was written, and believe, based on the language, that most of their psychological history was confidential.

"It is not possible to know how many inmates and parolees might halt their efforts to obtain mental health records after reading the language of the rule," the court said, demanding the rule be revised in accordance with Thompson.

In an email to Law360, assistant New Jersey Public Defender Fletcher Duddy thanked attorney Michael R. Noveck for his work on the case. Duddy said the court's decision "affirms that a just parole process must allow individuals to meaningfully understand and respond to information used in decisions affecting their liberty."

He said his office would continue to support "parole policies that are fair, transparent, and consistent with due process and will continue to engage in efforts to ensure regulations reflect those principles and protect the rights of all New Jerseyans."

Representatives for the state said they had no comments on the opinion Wednesday.

Ronald Robbins and the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender are represented by the office's own Michael R. Noveck.

The New Jersey State Parole Board is represented by Robert J. McGuire, Melissa H. Raksa, and Christopher C. Josephson of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office.

The case is In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to Amend N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11, N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2 and N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.20, case number 089529, in the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey.

--Editing by Dave Trumbore.