Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

May 17, 2022 | SCOTUS Wraps Up Oral Arguments for the Term

Jackson v. Hobbs: Supreme Court Limits Sentences for Youngest Offenders

Adults and children should be treated differently, even when it comes to the most serious crimes, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Jackson v. Hobbs, the justices held that requiring children convicted of murder to be sentenced to prison without possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Facts of the Case

The two cases before the Court each involved a 14-year-old offender who was convicted of murder. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

In one case, the defendant accompanied two other boys to a video store to commit a robbery; on the way to the store, he learned that one of the boys was carrying a shotgun. Kuntrell Jackson stayed outside the store for most of the robbery, but after he entered, one of his co-conspirators shot and killed the store clerk. Arkansas charged Jackson as an adult with capital felony murder and aggravated robbery, and a jury convicted him of both crimes.

In the other case, the defendant and a friend beat a neighbor and set fire to his trailer after a night of drinking and drug use. The neighbor died. Evan Miller was initially charged as a juvenile, but his case was removed to adult court, where he was convicted of murder in the course of arson.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court concluded that both sentences violated the Eighth Amendment, holding that the Constitution forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. As the majority opinion highlights, the Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.”

However, “[i]n neither case did the sentencing authority have any discretion to impose a different punishment. State law mandated that each juvenile die in prison even if a judge or jury would have thought that his youth and its attendant characteristics, along with the nature of his crime, made a lesser sentence (for example, life with the possibility of parole) more appropriate,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority.

As Kagan explained, “A judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.”

The Court’s decision is the latest in a string of decisions that alter how sentencing rules apply to young offenders. In 2005, the Supreme Court prohibited the death penalty for all juvenile offenders under the age of 18. In a 2010 decision, the Court concluded that life without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases also violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Wraps Up Oral Arguments for the Term
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 17, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded its oral arguments for the October 2021 Term. The justices hea...

Read More
SCOTUS Rules Censure of Elected Board Member Didn’t Violate First Amendment
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 10, 2022

In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. ____ (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held th...

Read More
Supreme Court Breach Is Not the First Involving Roe v. Wade
by DONALD SCARINCI on

The recent disclosure of Justice Samuel Alito’s decision purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade is ar...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Ketanji Brown Jackson to Join SCOTUS as First Black Female Justice
  • SCOTUS Rules Kentucky AG Can Defend Abortion Law
  • SCOTUS Rules FOIA Exception Applies to Environmental Opinion
  • SCOTUS Rules Students Have Standing to Bring Free Speech Suit

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards

con law awards

Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising