Miller v. Alabama
In brief
The Court ruled that laws cannot require life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders, overturned the state-court ruling in Miller’s case, and sent his case back to the lower court.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 25, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- Evan Miller was 14 when he committed a homicide and received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.
- Who it affects
- The ruling bars laws from automatically sentencing people to life without parole for homicides they committed before age 18.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment bars laws requiring that sentence for juvenile homicide offenders, overturned the state court ruling in Miller’s case, and sent it back to the lower court (remanded).
Evan Miller was 14 when he committed a homicide and received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.
The Court did not decide whether a judge may choose life without parole after considering an individual juvenile’s case.
Question presented
Does the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Pp. 6 − 27. No. 10 − 9646, 63 So. 3d 676, and No. 10 − 9647, 2011 Ark. 49, ___ S. W. 3d ___, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
From the opinions
“Our role, however, is to apply the law, not to answer such questions.”
What's next
Miller’s case returns to the lower court for further proceedings; the Supreme Court did not set a new sentence.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Miller v. Alabama
Opinion added: Miller
More questions
- What did Chief Justice Roberts object to?
- He argued the Court barred a punishment that, in his view, was not unusual under the Eighth Amendment.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.