The Third Circuit applied the Ex Post Facto Clause to parole hearings. In the 1970s, Homes committed multiple murders while on parole. In 1997, while he was serving life-with-the-possibility-of-parole sentences, the New Jersey Legislature amended the parole process. Previously, at the first parole hearing, the parole board could consider essentially any relevant information. But if the board denied parole at a successive hearing, the parole board could only consider conduct that occurred since the first hearing. Given that a defendant’s criminal record probably accrued before the first parole hearing, that record could not be considered at the second or successive hearing. But in 1997, the law changed, and the limitations on subsequent parole hearings were terminated. After the Parole Board denied him parole at a successive hearing while considering old information, Holmes filed suit in District Court, alleging the new law was an ex post facto violation. The District Court granted summary judgment for the government. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court ruled that, in parole cases, the Ex Post Facto Clause’s core mission is to ensure defendants understand their chances of receiving early release so they can plea bargain and strategize effectively.