Loading...
Loading...
Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Ellen K. BoegelJanuary 26, 2016

On Monday, Jan. 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed the retroactivity of its 2012 decision that prohibits mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. The decision creates the possibility of release for approximately 2,000 inmates nationwide. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the decision for the court, suggested states could comply with the ruling by granting parole hearings rather than costly resentencing proceedings. The decision was criticized by the dissenting justices, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, in part, because it seems to alter the standard for imposing life imprisonment for juveniles. Whereas the 2012 case invalidated mandatory juvenile life sentences and stated that an offender’s youth must be given consideration, this decision declares that life without parole is barred “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” Justice Kennedy concludes, “prisoners like Montgomery [who has spent 46 years in prison for a crime committed when he was 17] must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.”

In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision from its Idaho counterpart regarding the discretionary grant of attorney’s fees in federal civil rights lawsuits. Such a decision ordinarily would be unremarkable, but this case involved the Idaho Supreme Court’s direct refusal to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The federal court’s response was unequivocal. “As Justice Story explained 200 years ago, if state courts were permitted to disregard this Court’s rulings on federal law, ‘the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable.’” The per curiam decision whose author is undisclosed concluded, “The Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or federal court, is bound by this Court’s interpretation of federal law. The state court erred in concluding otherwise.” The case may have ramifications for state court judges, such as those in Alabama, who must decide whether to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination regarding same-sex marriage. 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

The latest from america

Join the 'Jesuitical' team at the studio and headquarters of America Media in New York City for two days of community, prayer and sharing stories of faith.
JesuiticalMay 30, 2025
Solar panels on the roof of the Paul VI audience hall at the Vatican in this Dec. 1, 2010, file photo. The installation had been approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008. Pope Francis released his landmark environmental encyclical "Laudato Si'" 10 years ago May 24, 2015. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
There are some signs of progress in addressing the questions raised in “Laudato Si’.” There are also intimations of backpedaling, particularly by the Trump administration, regarding the industrialized world’s malign effects on creation.
Kevin ClarkeMay 30, 2025
In this episode of “Inside the Vatican,” Colleen and Gerry explore the pope’s message to the Vatican workforce and recap Pope Leo’s formal installation at the Basilica of St. John Lateran on Sunday, May 25.
Inside the VaticanMay 30, 2025
Joining Zac and Ashley on this week’s episode of “Jesuitical” is Jamie Baxter, Founder & CEO of Exodus 90, a program that helps men to strengthen their faith through prayer, asceticism and fraternity.
JesuiticalMay 30, 2025