Cara Brown McCormick
Most Californians have never heard of BPH RN 25-01.
They probably should.
With little public attention and no vote of the Legislature, California has quietly adopted one of the most sweeping changes to its post-conviction review process in decades.
On July 9, the California Office of Administrative Law approved new regulations adopted by the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), establishing a formal process through which the Board may recommend certain incarcerated people for executive clemency or for recall of sentence and resentencing after they have served at least 25 years in prison. The regulations were filed with the Secretary of State the same day and will take effect on Oct. 1, 2026.
Known as BPH RN 25-01, the regulations are formally titled Consultations; Commutation and Recall of Sentence Recommendation Assessment Process for Recommendation of Incarcerated Persons for Commutation of Sentence under Penal Code Section 4801 and Recommendation of Incarcerated Persons for Recall of Sentence and Resentencing under Penal Code Section 1172.1.
The rulemaking process began with public notice on Sept. 5, 2025. Yet outside a relatively small circle of criminal justice attorneys, corrections officials, and victims' advocates, few Californians appear to know the regulations even exist.
That may soon change.
According to Board of Parole Hearings documents, 2,456 inmates will become immediately eligible for review when the regulations take effect. By Dec. 31, 2035, that number is projected to grow to 3,959. Reviews are expected to begin in 2027, with hearings beginning in 2028.
The regulations apply to inmates who have served at least 25 years in prison, including those serving life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), long-term life sentences, and other lengthy prison terms.
Notably, this could bring one of the most infamous murder cases in modern American history back into the spotlight.
Scott Peterson, who was found guilty in 2004 of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, will be among the inmates eligible for sentence review under the new regulations. Peterson could become eligible for release.
Only a narrow group of inmates is excluded, including those sentenced to death, certain offenders required to register under Penal Code Section 290, and some inmates already approaching parole hearings.
According to the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), the eligible population could include inmates convicted of child murder, serial murder, mass murder, torture murder, gang-motivated murder, hate-crime murder, and the murders of police officers and firefighters.
The regulations do not automatically reduce anyone's sentence or guarantee release. Instead, they establish a formal process through which the Board of Parole Hearings may determine whether an inmate should be recommended to the governor for commutation of sentence or recommended to a court for recall of sentence and resentencing under existing California law.
But for critics, the regulations represent far more than a new administrative procedure.
They raise a fundamental question about who has the power to reshape criminal sentences in California.
Can an administrative agency create an entirely new system for reconsidering sentences imposed decades ago by judges and juries?
That question will now go before California's courts.
CJLF announced last week that it will sue, arguing the Board exceeded its statutory authority by creating what the organization describes as "a de facto parole system through bureaucratic regulations."
The organization says the Board lacked statutory authority to create the process, that the regulations conflict with California's life-without-parole sentencing laws, that they violate the constitutional separation of powers, that they conflict with victims' rights protections under Marsy's Law, and that they violate California's Administrative Procedure Act.
CJLF also argues that "many victims believe the regulations fundamentally change sentences imposed by courts and juries without legislative approval."
For victims' families, however, the legal arguments are only part of the story.
Imagine believing a criminal case ended decades ago.
Imagine believing the sentence "life without the possibility of parole" meant exactly what it said.
Then imagine opening your mailbox years later to learn that the person convicted of murdering your spouse, your child, your parent, or your sibling is once again the subject of legal proceedings.
That is the future many victims' advocates fear these regulations could create.
According to CJLF, families could once again find themselves preparing victim-impact statements, attending Board of Parole Hearings proceedings, participating in resentencing hearings, following commutation proceedings, responding to appeals, and reliving crimes they believed had long since reached their legal conclusion.
The organization argues that the regulations risk retraumatizing survivors and reopening emotional wounds that many families spent decades trying to heal.
"Life without parole (LWOP) sentences were imposed to ensure offenders would never again seek release," CJLF states in a fact sheet released after the regulations were approved. "These regulations undermine that expectation."
The foundation has begun assembling a statewide coalition of victim advocacy organizations, crime survivors, prosecutors, law enforcement associations, and public safety organizations to oppose the regulations. It is also seeking victims and surviving family members whose cases could be affected as it prepares public education efforts and pursues litigation.
Supporters of the regulations see the issue differently.
The Board of Parole Hearings has framed the regulations as a standardized assessment process under existing California statutes governing commutation and recall of sentence. Under that view, the Board is not creating a new power to release inmates. It is creating procedures for exercising powers that already exist under California law.
CJLF is making the case that this is ultimately about more than parole, commutation, or resentencing. It is about the reach of administrative government.
It is about whether one state agency can fundamentally alter the practical effect of some of California's most serious criminal sentences through regulation rather than legislation.
And it is about whether thousands of victims' families who believed the hardest chapter of their lives had finally closed may soon be asked to open it once again.
“For more than three decades as a prosecutor and as Sacramento County's elected District Attorney, I stood with victims and their families as courts imposed sentences designed to protect the public and provide finality. These regulations create a new administrative process to reconsider some of California's most serious criminal sentences—including Life Without the Possibility of Parole—without clear legislative authorization,” said Anne Marie Schubert, President and CEO of CJLF.
“The people of California expect changes of this magnitude to be made by their elected representatives, not through administrative regulations. Victims were promised finality. The law should keep that promise."
For a regulatory change with consequences this far-reaching, it has unfolded with remarkably little public attention.