ALTHOUGH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS DURING PAROLE HEARINGS, NUMEROUS STATE AND FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS HAVE HELD THAT PAROLE BOARDS MUST FOLLOW FAIR PROCEDURES AND MUST TELL THE INMATE WHY A PAROLE APPLICATION IS DENIED. THE SUPREME COURT IN MORRISSEY V. BREWER (1972) HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF A PAROLEE, GENERATED BY STATUTE, IS A PROTECTED LIBERTY WHICH MAY NOT BE REVOKED WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS. SINCE 1976 THE FEDERAL PAROLE SYSTEM HAS BEEN GOVERNED BY A FAIRLY COMPREHENSIVE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME. THIS SECTION-BY-SECTION REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL PAROLE REGULATIONS EXPLAINS THE RATIONALE BEHIND EACH AND CITES APPLICABLE JUDICIAL DECISONS. IT COVERS THE PAROLE GUIDELINES, THE STRUCTURE OF THE PAROLE COMMISSION, AND HEARING PROCEDURES. THE GUIDELINES USE AN OFFENSE SEVERITY RATING, A SALIENT FACTOR RATING, AND A CONSIDERATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. NUMEROUS ATTACKS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THESE GUIDELINES, BUT, IN GENERAL, THEY HAVE BEEN UPHELD. ATTACKS ON APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES TO SPECIFIC CASES HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT MORE SUCCESSFUL, ESPECIALLY IF THE DEFENDANT CAN PROVE THAT DUE PROCESS OR RULES OF EVIDENCE WERE VIOLATED. PAROLE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED AND IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT RESTRICTIONS MUST BE REASONABLE. REVOCATION PROCEDURES ARE SURROUNDED BY COURT-MANDATED DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS; THESE JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE REVIEWED. APPENDIXES INCLUDE THE FULL TEXT OF THE FEDERAL PAROLE REGULATIONS, A SUMMARY OF RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS, AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY. (GLR)