Supreme Court reluctant to rule on juvenile murderers’ life sentences

Now, justices weighing Montgomery v. Louisiana will decide if mandatory life without parole sentences should be overturned for juvenile murderers who were sentenced before 2012.

At the heart of the Montgomery case is the issue little explored Tuesday: may several hundred – perhaps a thousand – inmates who received sentences of life without parole after they were convicted of murders they committed when under the age of eighteen get out of prison while still alive, or at least get their sentences reduced?

The 2012 decision didn’t liberate anyone sentenced before that year-including Henry Montgomery, the named plaintiff in the case before the court today.

A ruling in Montgomery’s favour could affect more than 1,000 inmates in similar situations across the US.

This week it will consider whether to make that ruling – Miller v. Alabama – retroactive and offer parole to juveniles automatically sentenced to life prior to 2012, the Len reports.

Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the earlier 5-4 decision, said that case changed the range of sentences juries could render. “Rather, his lawyers are asking the court to resolve his ‘unconstitutional confinement, ‘” the story reports.

But the justices also tussled over whether the court has the authority to hear the case at all, leaving the possibility that they might not offer a clear answer on how the past ruling should be applied.

Lawyers for Louisiana and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed with Montgomery’s lawyer that the court had jurisdiction to decide the case.

During oral arguments, the justices focused on two questions: whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case and whether Miller set out a new substantive sentencing rule, as opposed to a procedural one. “In my mind we have jurisdiction where there is a person – that’s the defendant – and the defendant says the court’s decision – that’s your court’s decision – is contrary to the Constitution or statute of the United States”, he said, questioning Louisiana’s attorney S. Kyle Duncan.

Even before the hearing, the Supreme Court had hinted at qualms about the Louisiana case.

What resulted, though, was a serious (and at times fascinating) seminar on how to sort out the roles of federal and state courts as they work in tandem, or in conflict, to sort out key questions of criminal law, and when can the Supreme Court step in to have the last word.

That drew a quick response from Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Supreme Court generally doesn’t apply its criminal rulings retroactively. But court precedent allows exceptions if the new rule is considered substantial.

A ruling along those lines would not necessarily end Montgomery’s case, which is now in state courts, because he instead could seek review in federal courts. He says about half of those serving these sentences have been in prison for more than 20 years, and he argues that in many cases the witnesses, prosecutors and defense lawyers – even the judges – may be dead, and school and medical records impossible to find.

In court, Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben supported Montgomery. The question now is, does that decision apply retroactively? “In our view”, he said, “it goes far beyond merely regulating the procedure by which youths are sentenced for homicide crimes”, he said”. But just south in Robeson County, at least three such hearings have been held and the right to parole proceedings granted.

Kagan seemed to agree with Montgomery. Seven states have no inmates serving such sentences. If they follow the technical logic of their retroactivity rule, things don’t look good for the people incarcerated under a principle that the court now says is cruel and unusual.