Summary of Argument

The parties disagree about whether Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), which precludes mandatory juvenile life without parole, has retroactive effect. The invited amicus curiae brief suggests that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the Miller retroactivity issue at all. A more straightforward way to resolve the case would be to answer the question this Court has explicitly left open: whether “the Eighth Amendment requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles.” Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. Nine states have abandoned juvenile life without parole in the three short years since Miller. Resort to the punishment has become exceedingly rare even in the jurisdictions that formally retain the sanction. In light of these developments, Amici urge the Court to request supplemental briefing on the question of whether imposing a life without parole sentence upon a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Summary of Argument

The legal landscape surrounding the sentencing of juvenile offenders has been significantly altered by the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012). While Miller held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, the question of whether this ruling applies retroactively remains unresolved.

An amicus curiae brief has raised concerns about the Court's jurisdiction to address the retroactivity issue. However, an alternative approach would be to directly confront the question left unanswered by Miller: whether the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of life without parole sentences on juveniles.

Since the Miller decision, several states have abolished juvenile life without parole, and its use has become increasingly infrequent even in jurisdictions where it remains a legal option. These developments suggest that societal norms have shifted away from such extreme punishments for young offenders. In light of this, the Court should consider requesting supplemental briefing on the constitutionality of juvenile life without parole under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

Summary of Argument

The Issue:

There is a disagreement about whether a previous court ruling (Miller v. Alabama) that banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles without the possibility of parole should apply to past cases.

A Different Approach:

Some legal experts suggest that the court should instead focus on a question that has not yet been answered: whether it is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to sentence juveniles to life in prison without parole.

Recent Developments:

Since the Miller ruling, nine states have stopped using juvenile life sentences. Even in states where it is still legal, it is rarely used.

Request for More Information:

Legal experts are asking the court to consider additional information on whether juvenile life sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Summary of Argument

There's a debate about a court case called Miller v. Alabama. In that case, the court said that kids shouldn't automatically get life in prison without parole, which means they would never get out.

Some people think this rule should apply to kids who were already sentenced before the Miller case. But others say the court doesn't have the power to make that decision.

Instead, there's a suggestion to look at a different question: Should kids ever get life in prison without parole?

Since the Miller case, nine states have stopped giving this punishment to kids. And even in states where it's still allowed, it's very rare.

So, some people are asking the court to consider whether it's cruel and unusual punishment to sentence kids to life in prison without parole.

Summary of Argument

Some people are arguing about a rule that says kids who commit crimes can't be sentenced to life in prison without the chance to get out. They're not sure if this rule should apply to kids who were already sentenced before the rule was made.

But there's another question that hasn't been answered yet: Should kids ever be sentenced to life in prison without the chance to get out? In the past few years, many states have stopped giving this punishment to kids. Even in states where it's still allowed, it's not used very often.

Some people are asking the court to think about this question and decide if it's fair to sentence kids to life in prison without the chance to get out. They think it might be cruel and unusual punishment, which is not allowed by the Constitution.