Is Life Without Parole for Juveniles Cruel and Unusual?: SCOTUSblog writer Lyle Denniston posts that in today's Supreme Court oral arguments in Graham v. Florida, Chief Justice Roberts appeared to be urging the Court to decide that a state sentence to life without parole for juveniles does not violate the Eighth Amendment. According to Denniston, the Chief Justice favored an approach that would require judges to take the offender's youth into account in setting any
sentence for a term of years, then judge whether that sentence was
"proportional" both for an offender of that age and for the particular
crime. Hopefully the Court finds Chief Roberts' alternative more attractive than an outright ban. Another issue addressed by the Court today was whether the Court had authority even to hear Sullivan v. Florida on the constitutional question. That was addressed in our brief, and the 11 pages the Court spent reviewing the issue with Sullivan's counsel indicates the Court may not extend its ruling in Graham to Sullivan's case. Doug Berman also posts on Graham and Sullivan at Sentencing Law and Policy. He wonders exactly how the Justices will line-up when the Court's decision comes down.
The Fate of Major Nidal Malik Hasan: At Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Ashby Jones wonders what will become of accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Malik Hasan once proceedings against him really begin. Jones points to a Houston Chronicle article by Lynsi Burton and Stewart M. Powell that reports much of Hasan's fate rests in whether civilian prosecutors conclude he was part of a terrorist plot that might justify moving his case into the federal criminal courts under U.S. anti-terrorism laws. This does seem likely to either Jones or the Chronicle. They write that Hasan is most likely to be court-martialed under Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and punished for offenses allegedly committed by a man wearing a U.S. military uniform against other military personnel on a military base.
The Constitution's "Necessary and Proper" Clause and the Adam Walsh Act: At Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett blogs that in the case, United States v. Comstock (08-1224), the Supreme Court could find a limit to Congress' ability "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Barnett, one of the authors of an amicus brief supporting Comstock, writes that a provision of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act that authorizes the federal government to civilly commit anyone in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons whom the attorney general certifies to be "sexually dangerous;" is not linked to one of the Constitution's enumerated powers. Barnett, and co-author Ilya Shapiro believe that Congress' implied power "to establish a federal penal system" provides insufficient grounds for support.
Not Quite like the U.S. Supremes: Howard Bashman posts an article from the Financial Times on the £350 fee the United Kingdom's Supreme Court will be charging members of the public who want access to court documents. Financial Times writer, Michael Peel, reports that the Court provides free internet access for video links to easily digestible summaries of its judgments, but will charge those who want "to do an old-style reading of available legal arguments...a high price for their interest." This makes this old-fashioned SCOTUS watcher all the more thankful for our Supreme Court's simple -and free- website.
The Fate of Major Nidal Malik Hasan: At Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Ashby Jones wonders what will become of accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Malik Hasan once proceedings against him really begin. Jones points to a Houston Chronicle article by Lynsi Burton and Stewart M. Powell that reports much of Hasan's fate rests in whether civilian prosecutors conclude he was part of a terrorist plot that might justify moving his case into the federal criminal courts under U.S. anti-terrorism laws. This does seem likely to either Jones or the Chronicle. They write that Hasan is most likely to be court-martialed under Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and punished for offenses allegedly committed by a man wearing a U.S. military uniform against other military personnel on a military base.
The Constitution's "Necessary and Proper" Clause and the Adam Walsh Act: At Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett blogs that in the case, United States v. Comstock (08-1224), the Supreme Court could find a limit to Congress' ability "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Barnett, one of the authors of an amicus brief supporting Comstock, writes that a provision of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act that authorizes the federal government to civilly commit anyone in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons whom the attorney general certifies to be "sexually dangerous;" is not linked to one of the Constitution's enumerated powers. Barnett, and co-author Ilya Shapiro believe that Congress' implied power "to establish a federal penal system" provides insufficient grounds for support.
Not Quite like the U.S. Supremes: Howard Bashman posts an article from the Financial Times on the £350 fee the United Kingdom's Supreme Court will be charging members of the public who want access to court documents. Financial Times writer, Michael Peel, reports that the Court provides free internet access for video links to easily digestible summaries of its judgments, but will charge those who want "to do an old-style reading of available legal arguments...a high price for their interest." This makes this old-fashioned SCOTUS watcher all the more thankful for our Supreme Court's simple -and free- website.
Leave a comment