Skip to main content

Substantive Law

Montgomery v. Louisiana (14-280)

Issues

Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory sentencing schemes requiring juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole, apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide this issue?

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to determine whether Miller v. Alabama’s prohibition of mandatory sentencing schemes requiring juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole applies retroactively to offenders seeking collateral review. See  Brief for Petitioner, Henry Montgomery at i. Montgomery argues that Miller applies retroactively, because it announces a new substantive rule altering the range of available sentencing options, and it establishes a substantive right to individualized sentencing for juveniles facing life without parole. See id. at 16–19. However, Louisiana argues that Miller does not apply retroactively because it proscribes a procedural rather than a substantive rule. See Brief for Respondent, Louisiana at 16. The Court’s decision will impact the treatment of juveniles in sentencing proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Did Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) adopt a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review?
  2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to this Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama?

In 1963, 17-year-old Henry Montgomery was arrested for the murder of Sheriff Deputy Charles Hurt in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. See Brief for Petitioner, Henry Montgomery at 3.  Montgomery was convicted of murder and received the death penalty.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Substantive Law