Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 58

Cite as:  567 U. S. ____ (2012) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

in Coker, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohib­
its  the  imposition  of  the  death  penalty  for  the  rape  of  an 
adult woman, the Court noted that only one State permit­
ted that practice.  Id., at 595–596.  In Enmund, where the 
Court  held  that  the  Eighth  Amendment  forbids  capital 
punishment  for  ordinary  felony  murder,  both  federal  law 
and  the  law  of  28  of  the  36  States  that  authorized  the 
death  penalty  at  the  time  rejected  that  punishment.  458 
U. S., at 789. 

While  the  tally  in  these  early  cases  may  be  character­
ized  as  evidence  of  a  national  consensus,  the  evidence 
became  weaker  and  weaker  in  later  cases.    In  Atkins, 
which  held  that  low-IQ  defendants  may  not  be  sentenced
to  death,  the  Court  found  an  anti–death-penalty  consen­
sus even though more than half of the States that allowed 
capital punishment permitted the practice.  See 536 U. S., 
at  342  (SCALIA,  J.,  dissenting)  (observing  that  less  than
half  of  the  38  States  that  permit  capital  punishment
have enacted legislation barring execution of the mentally
retarded).  The  Court  attempted  to  get  around  this  prob­
lem by noting that there was a pronounced trend against 
this  punishment.  See  id.,  at  313–315  (listing  18  States
that  had  amended  their  laws  since  1986  to  prohibit  the 
execution of mentally retarded persons).

The  importance  of  trend  evidence,  however,  was  not 
long  lived.  In  Roper, which  outlawed  capital  punishment
for defendants between the ages of 16 and 18, the lineup of 
the  States  was  the  same  as  in  Atkins,  but  the  trend  in 
favor  of  abolition—five  States  during  the  past  15  years—
was less impressive.  Roper, 543 U. S., at 564–565.  Never­
theless, the Court held that the absence of a strong trend
in  support  of  abolition  did  not  matter.    See  id.,  at  566 
(“Any difference between this case and Atkins with respect
to  the  pace  of  abolition  is  thus  counterbalanced  by  the 
consistent direction of the change”).

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court went further.  Hold­