Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

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

7 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

decision,  primarily  relying  on  Graham  and  Roper.  Ante, 
at  7.  Petitioners  argue  that  the  reasoning  of  those  cases 
“compels”  finding  in  their  favor.    Jackson  Brief  34.    The 
Court  is  apparently  unwilling  to  go  so  far,  asserting  only 
that  precedent  points  in  that  direction.    But  today’s  deci-
sion  invalidates  the  laws  of  dozens  of  legislatures  and 
Congress.  This  Court  is  not  easily  led  to  such  a  result. 
See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883) 
(courts must presume an Act of Congress is constitutional 
“unless  the  lack  of  constitutional  authority  . . .  is  clearly 
demonstrated”).  Because  the  Court  does  not  rely  on  the 
Eighth Amendment’s text or objective evidence of society’s 
standards,  its  analysis  of  precedent  alone  must  bear  the
“heavy burden [that] rests on those who would attack the
judgment of the representatives of the people.”  Gregg, 428 
U. S., at 175.  If the Court is unwilling to say that prece-
dent compels today’s decision, perhaps it should reconsider 
that decision. 

In  any  event,  the  Court’s  holding  does  not  follow  from 
Roper  and  Graham.  Those  cases  undoubtedly  stand  for
the  proposition  that  teenagers  are  less  mature,  less  re-
sponsible,  and  less  fixed  in  their  ways  than  adults—not 
that  a  Supreme  Court  case  was  needed  to  establish  that.
What  they  do  not  stand  for,  and  do  not  even  suggest,  is
that legislators—who also know that teenagers are differ-
ent  from  adults—may  not  require  life  without  parole  for
juveniles who commit the worst types of murder. 

That Graham does not imply today’s result could not be 
clearer.  In  barring  life  without  parole  for  juvenile  non-
homicide  offenders,  Graham  stated  that  “[t]here  is  a  line
‘between  homicide  and  other  serious  violent  offenses 
against the individual.’ ”  560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 18) 
(quoting Kennedy, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 27)).  The 
whole  point  of  drawing  a  line  between  one  issue  and  an-
other  is  to  say  that  they  are  different  and  should  be
treated differently.  In other words, the two are in different