Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 55

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

decision  leaves  intact  the  discretionary  imposition  of  life-
without-parole  sentences  for  juvenile  homicide  offenders,
it  “think[s]  appropriate  occasions  for  sentencing  juveniles 
to  [life  without  parole]  will  be  uncommon.”  Ante,  at  17. 
That  statement  may  well  cause  trial  judges  to  shy  away 
from imposing life without parole sentences and embolden 
appellate judges to set them aside when they are imposed. 
And,  when  a  future  petitioner  seeks  a  categorical  ban  on
sentences  of  life  without  parole  for  juvenile  homicide 
offenders, this Court will most assuredly look to the “actual
sentencing  practices”  triggered  by  this  case.    The  Court 
has, thus, gone from “merely” divining the societal consen-
sus of today to shaping the societal consensus of tomorrow. 

* 

* 

* 
  Today’s decision invalidates a constitutionally permissi-
ble  sentencing  system  based  on  nothing  more  than  the 
Court’s belief that “its own sense of morality . . . pre-empts
that  of  the  people  and  their  representatives.”    Graham, 
supra,  at  ___  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  29).
Because nothing in the Constitution grants the Court the
authority it exercises today, I respectfully dissent.