E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
I finally got around to reading Graham v. Florida, the juvenile life-without-parole case, and had these "inside baseball" thoughts. (1) At one point in Chief Justice Roberts's opinion concurring in the result, the "royal we" appears: "Justice Thomas disagrees with even our limited reliance on Roper...." I wonder whether this indicates that the Chief Justice tried to float his opinion as an opinion for the Court, and wasn't able to persuade the majority to go along. Parts I and II of his opinion do have some structural similarities to what Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, and Part III is clearly a free-standing one. On the other hand, Justice Kennedy's opinion is pretty long, and reads as if it was written from the get-go.
(2) The majority opinion refers to non-U.S. law as "support[ing] ... its independent conclusion" (a slightly stronger formulation, in my view, than earlier references to non-U.S. law as "confirming" an independent conclusion). The fuss ginned up over such references appears not to have scared the majority away from "continu[ing a] longstanding practice," and Justice Sotomayor, given her first opportunity to participate in a decision referring to non-U.S. law, went along without comment. I look forward to hearing how nominee Kagan deals with the inevitable questions on this that she'll get.
(3) More substantively, the Court holds that life-without-parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders is unconstitutional, and says that if a state wants to impose life sentences, it must give the offenders a chance to show at some later point that they deserve release. What, though, of very long determinate sentences (50 years without opportunity for parole)? Put another way, is there some threshold length-of-sentence above which states must operate parole systems for juvenile offenders? Here I look forward to the inevitable litigation. (If I were structuring it, I'd look for a juvenile offender who received a determinate sentence that extends beyond his expected lifetime.) Posted
9:26 AM
by Mark Tushnet [link]