Summary of Argument

Petitioners would have this Court categorically declare unconstitutional the imposition of a sentence of life without parole on any juvenile offender, regardless of the severity of the crime, the individual offender’s maturity and culpability, and the juvenile’s criminal history. Essentially, they are asserting a facial challenge against the application of this punishment to juveniles as a class. As we demonstrate below in Part I, petitioners’ approach is foreclosed by this Court’s holding that a law may not be declared facially unconstitutional unless there is no set of circumstances under which the challenged law would be valid. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). Here, petitioners bear the burden of showing that there is no case in which the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence would be constitutionally valid against a juvenile. They cannot carry this burden.

Petitioners’ reliance on the categorical exclusions set forth in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), is inapposite. Roper was a death penalty case and, as this Court has held time and again, “death is different.” Given both the irrevocability and the ultimate severity of the death penalty, its imposition implicates prophylactic rules that do not apply to sentences of imprisonment—even imprisonment for life. Outside of capital punishment, this Court has never exempted a whole class of offenders from a particular category of punishment on the ground that it would be cruel and unusual. Because life imprisonment does not raise the same issues as a sentence of death, the Court should decline petitioners’ invitation to do so now.

Rather, this Court should apply its long-standing and well-established methodology for judging the constitutionality of a prison term: whether the sentence is “grossly disproportionate” to the individual crime. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003). This methodology shuns categorical distinctions; rather, it looks to case-specific factors like the severity of the crime and the offender’s criminal history. While a court reviewing the proportionality of a non-capital sentence is under no constitutional obligation to take into consideration mitigating factors like the offender’s age, if youth has any place in the calculus, it is as one of many factors to be weighed, not as the source of an independently determinative bright-line rule. Applying these principles to Graham’s and Sullivan’s sentences, it is clear, as we show in Part II, that the imposition of life without parole was not grossly disproportionate in those cases. Both petitioners engaged in serious crimes of violence that posed a great threat to public safety. Each had a long record of prior offenses that suggested that rehabilitation was not an option. And each continued to commit violent crimes after receiving relatively lenient treatment for their prior offenses. Under these circumstances, a sentence of life without parole is not cruel and unusual punishment. And Graham’s and Sullivan’s cases well illustrate the wisdom of avoiding the categorical bar they seek.

Summary of Argument

The constitutionality of imposing life without parole (LWOP) sentences on juvenile offenders has been challenged on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioners argue that LWOP should be categorically prohibited for juveniles, regardless of the circumstances. However, this facial challenge is precluded by the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Salerno (1987), which prohibits declaring a law facially unconstitutional unless it is invalid in all possible applications.

Categorical Exclusions and the Death Penalty

Petitioners rely on the categorical exclusions established in Roper v. Simmons (2005), which prohibited the death penalty for juveniles. However, the Court has consistently recognized that "death is different" and that the irrevocability and severity of capital punishment warrant prophylactic rules that do not apply to imprisonment.

Gross Disproportionality Test

Outside of capital punishment, the Court has consistently applied the "gross disproportionality" test to determine the constitutionality of prison sentences. This test examines the severity of the crime and the offender's criminal history, rather than relying on categorical distinctions.

Mitigating Factors and Youth

While courts are not constitutionally obligated to consider mitigating factors such as age in non-capital sentencing, youth may be considered as one of many factors. However, it does not create a bright-line rule that automatically prohibits LWOP for juveniles.

Case-Specific Analysis

Applying the gross disproportionality test to the cases of Graham and Sullivan, the Court concluded that LWOP was not a cruel and unusual punishment. Both offenders had committed serious violent crimes, had extensive prior criminal records, and had continued to engage in violence despite receiving lenient treatment.

Conclusion

The Court's analysis demonstrates the importance of avoiding categorical bars in sentencing. The constitutionality of LWOP for juvenile offenders must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of the crime and the offender.

Summary of Argument

Some people believe that no juvenile offender should ever receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole, no matter how serious their crime. They argue that this punishment is too harsh for young people who may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

However, others argue that there are some cases where a life sentence is appropriate for juvenile offenders. They point out that the death penalty is different from other punishments, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be imposed on juveniles. They also argue that some juvenile offenders are so dangerous that they should never be released from prison.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a law cannot be declared unconstitutional unless there is no situation where it would be valid. This means that those who want to ban life sentences for juveniles must prove that there is no case where such a sentence would be appropriate.

Instead of banning life sentences for all juveniles, the Court has ruled that judges should consider whether the sentence is "grossly disproportionate" to the crime. This means that judges should look at the severity of the crime, the offender's criminal history, and other factors.

In two recent cases, the Court upheld life sentences for juvenile offenders who had committed serious crimes of violence. Both offenders had long criminal records and had continued to commit crimes after receiving lenient treatment in the past. The Court ruled that in these cases, a life sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment.

The debate over whether juvenile offenders should ever receive life sentences is likely to continue. The Supreme Court has ruled that such sentences are not always unconstitutional, but that they should be imposed only in cases where they are proportionate to the crime.

Summary of Argument

Some people believe that it's never okay to sentence a teenager to life in prison without the possibility of parole, no matter how serious their crime. They argue that this punishment is too harsh and doesn't consider the fact that teens are still developing and may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

However, others argue that this rule is not fair because there are some cases where a life sentence is appropriate for a teen. They point out that:

• Death sentences are different from life sentences because they can't be reversed.

• The court should consider each case individually and look at factors like the severity of the crime and the teen's criminal history.

• Age is just one factor to consider, not a reason to automatically rule out a life sentence.

In two specific cases, Graham and Sullivan, the court ruled that life sentences without parole were not too harsh. Both teens had committed serious crimes and had a history of violence. The court believed that they were a danger to society and that rehabilitation was unlikely.

These cases show that it's important to avoid making blanket rules about sentencing teens. Each case should be considered on its own merits.

Summary of Argument

Some people want to make it against the law to sentence kids and teens life to prison without parole, no matter what they did. They say it's not fair. But the law says that we can't say that a person will never get that sentence. We have to look at each case and decide if it's fair in that situation.

The people who want to change the rule say that kids shouldn't get life in prison without parole because they're not as responsible for their actions as adults. But there are some kids who have done really bad things, like murder.

The law says that we should look at how serious the crime was and what the kid's life has been like before we decide if life in prison without parole is fair. We don't have to think about their age, but we can if we want to.

There are two kids named Graham and Sullivan who got life in prison without parole. They both did violent crimes and had been in trouble with the law before. The judges decided that it was fair to give them this punishment because they were a danger to other people.

So, the rule is that we can't say that kids can never get life in prison without parole, but we have to look at each case and decide if it's fair.