Montgomery v. Louisiana

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-280	La.	Oct 13, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jan 25, 2016	6-3	Kennedy	OT 2015

Holding: 1) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a state supreme court correctly refused to give retroactive effect to the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles; and (2) Miller announced a new substantive rule that, under the Constitution, is retroactive in cases on state collateral review.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on January 25, 2016. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Academic highlight: Vázquez and Vladeck on the constitutional right to post-conviction review (Amanda Frost)
Court sends Arizona life-without-parole cases back to state courts (Amy Howe)
Opinion analysis: Further limit on life sentences for youthful criminals (Lyle Denniston)
Argument analysis: A barrier to deciding juvenile sentencing issue? (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: A new look -- maybe -- at life sentences for youths (Lyle Denniston)
Academic highlight: Retroactivity of decisions setting new Eighth Amendment proportionality standards (Amanda Frost)
As the 2015 Term opens: The Court’s unusual Eighth Amendment focus (Rory Little)
Juvenile sentencing argument expanded (Lyle Denniston)
Criminal law grants for the October Term 2015 (Rory Little)
Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 5 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 9, 2014)
Oct 9 2014	Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
Oct 22 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.
Nov 3 2014	Response Requested . (Due December 3, 2014)
Dec 3 2014	Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed.
Dec 10 2014	Reply of petitioner Henry Montgomery filed.
Dec 17 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.
Feb 9 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.
Feb 23 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2015.
Mar 2 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 6, 2015.
Mar 9 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.
Mar 23 2015	Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Do we have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012)?"
Mar 30 2015	Richard Bernstein, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue, as amicus curiae, against this Courts jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012). The brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is to be filed on or before Wednesday, June 10, 2015. The brief of petitioner is to be filed on or before Friday, July 10, 2015. The brief of respondent is to be filed on or before Monday, August 10, 2015. Reply briefs are to be filed on or before Wednesday, September 9, 2015.
May 21 2015	The time to file the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including June 16, 2015.
May 21 2015	The time to file petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2015.
Jun 5 2015	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 24, 2015.
Jun 16 2015	Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae filed.
Jul 1 2015	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jul 2 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Jul 6 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jul 22 2015	Brief of petitioner Henry Montgomery filed.
Jul 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Louisiana filed.
Jul 28 2015	Brief amici curiae of Certain Family Members of Victims Killed by Youths filed.
Jul 28 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former Juvenile Court Judges filed.
Jul 29 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 13, 2015.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amici curiae of Equal Justice Initiative on Behalf of Dozens Sentenced to Die in Prison When They Were Children filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in support of jurisdiction filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amici curiae of Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., et al. filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amici curiae of Charles Houston Institute for Race and Justice, et al. in support of neither party filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amici curiae of Northwestern University School of Law's Children and Family Justice Center and Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, et al. filed.
Jul 29 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Professor Douglas A. Berman filed.
Aug 12 2015	Record requested from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Aug 12 2015	Reply briefs are to be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3.
Aug 17 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 19 2015	Motion for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument filed by the parties.
Aug 24 2015	Brief of respondent Louisiana filed. (Distributed)
Aug 31 2015	CIRCULATED
Aug 31 2015	Brief amici curiae of Michigan and 15 Other States filed (Reprinted). (Distributed)
Aug 31 2015	Brief amici curiae of Becky Wilson and the National Association of Victims of Juvenile Murderers filed.
Aug 31 2015	Brief amici curiae of National District Attorneys Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 31 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Sep 14 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Sep 14 2015	Motion for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument GRANTED and the time is divided as follows: 15 minutes for the Court-appointed amici curiae, 15 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 30 minutes for respondent. The Court-appointed amici curiae and petitioner will each be permitted to reserve time for rebuttal.
Sep 22 2015	Record received from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. (1 Box)
Sep 23 2015	Reply of petitioner Henry Montgomery filed. (Distributed)
Sep 23 2015	Reply brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae filed. (Distributed)
Oct 13 2015	Argued. For the Court-appointed amicus curiae: Richard D. Bernstein, Washington, D. C. For petitioner: Mark D. Plaisance, Thibodaux, La.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: S. Kyle Duncan, Washington, D. C.
Jan 25 2016	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Feb 26 2016	Judgment Issued
Feb 26 2016	Mandate Issued

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Montgomery v. Louisiana

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award