U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Jones v. Mississippi Opinion

On April 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court declined to impose additional procedural requirements on the ability of states to sentence individuals to life without parole for crimes committed as children.

Brett Jones, the petitioner in the case, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime committed in 2004 when he was 15 years old. After Miller, the Mississippi Circuit Court resentenced Mr. Jones to life without the possibility of parole without finding him permanently incorrigible or explicitly considering his capacity for rehabilitation. The court did, however, state that it had “considered each of the Miller factors” and discussed various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the circumstances of the crime, Mr. Jones’s home environment, and his maturity.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh held that Miller does not require “a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility” before a youthful offender may be sentenced to life without parole, and “a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility . . . is not required.”

However, Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly highlighted that “[Jones] does not overrule Miller or Montgomery” and that it does not disturb Miller’s substantive holding that “[a] State may not impose a mandatory life-without-parole sentence” on an individual who committed a homicide offense when they were under the age of 18.” Thus, Jones dealt only with the procedure that attends a juvenile sentencing hearing, leaving untouched the substantive rules articulated by the Court’s previous cases. Indeed, the Court reaffirmed such rulings, reciting the fundamental principle of Montgomery:

“Louisiana suggests that Miller cannot have made a constitutional distinction between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption because Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility. That this finding is not required, however, speaks only to the degree of procedure Miller mandated in order to implement its substantive guarantee. … That Miller did not impose formal factfinding requirement does not leave States free to sentence a child whose crime reflects transient immaturity to life without parole.”

Moreover, as noted by Justice Kavanaugh and highlighted by the dissent, an individual sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed as a child may successfully challenge such a sentence under the Eighth Amendment by showing that the sentence was disproportionate as applied in their particular case.

Importantly, Justice Kavanaugh also emphasized that while the U.S. Constitution does not demand any one particular policy approach to comply with the requirements of Miller, states may impose a number of additional sentencing limits in cases involving individuals facing life without parole for crimes committed as children.

For example,

“States may categorically prohibit life without parole for all offenders under 18. States may require sentencers to make extra factual findings before sentencing an offender under 18 to life without parole. Or States may direct sentencers to formally explain on the record why a life-without-parole sentence is appropriate notwithstanding the defendant’s youth. States may also establish rigorous proportionality or other substantive appellate review of life-without-parole sentences. All of those options, and others, remain available to the States.”

Opinion in Jones v. Mississippi

Oral Argument in Jones v. Mississippi (Audio & Transcript)

Certiorari Petition & Opposition Filed in Jones v. Mississippi 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Behalf of Petitioner Brett Jones

Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Behalf of Respondent Mississippi

Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Behalf of Petitioner Brett Jones

Party Briefs

Brief Filed on Behalf of Petitioner Brett Jones

Brief Filed on Behalf of Respondent Mississippi

Reply Brief Filed on Behalf of Petitioner Brett Jones

Amicus Briefs

Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Criminal Law filed.

Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of Juvenile Law Center, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of Madge Jones, Tony Jones, Marty Jones and Nicolle Olson filed.

Brief amici curiae of The ACLU Foundation, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of Erwin Chemerinsky, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Prosecutors, Department of Justice Officials, and Judges filed.

Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.

On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that it is unconstitutional to impose a life-without-parole sentence on someone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime without first considering “how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 480 (2012). In so ruling, the Court struck down all statutes that require a child to be sentenced to die in prison. The ruling granted new sentencing hearings for Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, petitioners in the two cases before the Court, both of whom were automatically sentenced to life in prison without parole for crimes they committed at the age of 14.*

The Court held that imposing life-without-parole sentences on children without consideration of their youth “contravenes Graham’s (and also Roper’s) foundational principle: that imposition of a State’s most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children.”  Miller, 567 U.S. at 474. Therefore, regardless of the crime committed, child status matters.

Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, said that sentencing must include consideration of a child’s chronological age and its hallmark features, such as immaturity, impetuosity and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. Id. at 477. It also should take into account the family and home environment — from which the youth cannot usually extricate himself, even if it is brutal or dysfunctional, as well as the youth’s role in the crime and potential to become rehabilitated. Id.

The Court also was clear that life without parole sentences for children should be rare. Justice Kagan wrote, “Given all we have said in Roper, Graham, and this decision about children’s diminished culpability, and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.” Id. at 479. Further the sentence is appropriate only for “the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Id. at 479-480. The ruling affects more than 2600 individuals whose age and other mitigating factors were not taken into account at sentencing.

*Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs are companion cases that were argued separately but that shared one Supreme Court opinion.

Learn More:

Miller v. Alabama Opinion

Quotes Compiled by the CFSY from Miller v. Alabama Opinion

Miller v. Alabama Oral Arguments Audio

Jackson v. Hobbs Oral Arguments Audio

Media coverage

Photographs from the Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama Supreme Court Oral Arguments

BRIEF OF FORMER JUVENILE COURT JUDGES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Brief for Professor of Law and his Students from the Moritz College of Law in Support of Petitioners

BRIEF OF JUVENILE LAW CENTER ET AL AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

BRIEF OF THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ET AL AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE J LAWRENCE ABER ET AL IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

BRIEF OF JEFFREY FAGAN ET AL AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS