Civil and Human Rights

Montgomery v. Louisiana

Montgomery v. Louisiana addressed whether the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which held that sentencing schemes that mandate life without the possibility of parole for juveniles are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, created a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.

Case Summary

In 1969, Henry Montgomery was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. Even though Montgomery was 17 when he committed the offense for which he received the mandatory sentence of life in prison, the Louisiana state courts held that no relief was available now because the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller should not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. Louisiana had been one of a number of states where Miller was not applied retroactively, which meant that juvenile offenders whose cases were no longer subject to direct review could not challenge their sentence of mandatory life without parole, even though the Supreme Court held in Miller that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment.

On July 28, 2015, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Montgomery on behalf of former juvenile court judges, arguing that retroactive application of Miller is the only way to vindicate the Court’s holding that mandatory life without parole sentences are inappropriate for juvenile offenders. As former juvenile court judges, amici have extensive experience interacting with and sentencing juvenile offenders, and know that juvenile offenders are generally less mature and more impressionable than adult offenders, making them at once “less culpable” for their offenses and also more amenable to change. For these reasons, amici believe that no juvenile should be sentenced to mandatory life without parole, and that the Court should apply its decision in Miller retroactively to cases currently on collateral review. As our brief demonstrated, Miller itself makes clear that many of the factors relevant to reviewing juvenile offenders’ sentences can and should be applied to cases on collateral review in the same way they would be applied to cases on direct review, and the criminal justice system is equipped to apply Miller in these retroactive situations even when significant time has passed since the offense.

The Court heard oral argument on October 13, 2015. On January 25, 2016, the Court held – by a 6-3 vote – that Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders announced a new substantive rule that, under the Constitution, must be applied retroactively in cases on state collateral review. The Court reaffirmed Miller’s recognition that juveniles differ from adults in both their culpability and their possibility for reform, adding that “children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change.” It also explained that remedying Miller violations would not impose an onerous burden on the states because states can apply the Court’s ruling by extending parole eligibility to juvenile offenders.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
September 12, 2018

It’s Time to Close a Loophole in the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Rule

ACLU
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no one can be tried...
Civil and Human Rights
September 16, 2018

Understanding the three-fifths compromise

San Antonio Express-News
Constitution Day is today. The U.S. Constitution is a document that evolves with the times....
Civil and Human Rights
August 22, 2018

Toward a More Perfect Union: The LGBTQ Community and the Constitution

Host: American Constitution Society and Human Rights Campaign
Join ACS and HRC for an afternoon symposium addressing the relationship between the LGBTQ community,...
Participants: Praveen Fernandes, Katie Eyer, Caroline Fredrickson, Nancy J. Knauer, Sharon McGowan, Shannon Minter, Steve Sanders, Paul Smith, Ria Tabacco Mar, Harper Jean Tobin, Sarah Warbelow, JoDee Winterhof
Civil and Human Rights
September 21, 2018

The 14th Amendment at 150 Symposium

Ratified 150 years ago, the 14th Amendment has been called America’s “Second Founding.” The Bill...
Participants: Brianne J. Gorod, Hon. Judge Elizabeth L. Branch, Hon. Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Hon. Judge David R. Stras, Hon. Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, Hon. Dale Wainwright, Hon. Judge Don R. Willett, Hon. Justice Patrick Wyrick, Dana Berliner, Evan D. Bernick, David Bernstein, Josh Blackman, Robert J. Cottrol, Hon. Dominic Draye, Katie Eyer, Aderson B. Francois, Christopher Green, Martha Jones, Kurt Lash, Hon. Elbert Lin, Gerard N. Magliocca, John Malcolm, Timothy Sandefur, Anthony Sanders, Ilya Shapiro, Samuel Spital, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Civil and Human Rights
August 9, 2018

Crisis In The Courts: The Future of LGBT Equality and the Federal Judiciary

Host: National LGBT Bar Association
Civil and Human Rights
July 19, 2018

Michael Anton’s Op-Ed on Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Racist, Ahistorical Gobbledygook

Slate
Should Donald Trump issue an executive order purporting to strip millions of children of immigrants...