Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

2 

MILLER v. ALABAMA 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

constitutional warrant, I respectfully dissent.1 

I 
The Court first relies on its cases “adopt[ing] categorical
bans  on  sentencing  practices  based  on  mismatches  be-
tween the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity 
of  a  penalty.”  Ante,  at  6–7.    Of  these  categorical  propor-
tionality  cases,  the  Court  places  particular  emphasis  on 
Roper  v.  Simmons,  543  U. S.  551  (2005),  and  Graham  v. 
Florida,  560  U. S.  ___  (2010).    In  Roper,  the  Court  held 
that the Constitution prohibits the execution of an offender
who  was  under  18  at  the  time  of  his  offense.    543  U.  S., 
at 578.  The Roper Court looked to, among other things, its 
own  sense  of  parental  intuition  and  “scientific  and  socio-
logical studies” to conclude that offenders under the age of 
18  “cannot  with  reliability  be  classified  among  the  worst
offenders.”  Id.,  at  569.  In  Graham,  the  Court  relied  on 
similar  considerations  to  conclude  that  the  Constitution 
prohibits a life-without-parole sentence for a nonhomicide 
offender  who  was  under  the  age  of  18  at  the  time  of  his 
offense.  560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 24). 

The  Court  now  concludes  that  mandatory  life-without-
parole  sentences  for  duly  convicted  juvenile  murderers
“contraven[e]  Graham’s  (and  also  Roper’s)  foundational
principle:  that  imposition  of  a  State’s  most  severe  penal-
ties  on  juvenile  offenders  cannot  proceed  as  though  they
were not children.”  Ante, at 11–12.  But neither Roper nor 
Graham  held  that  specific  procedural  rules  are  required 
for sentencing juvenile homicide offenders.  And, the logic
of  those  cases  should  not  be  extended  to  create  such  a 
requirement.

The  Eighth  Amendment,  made  applicable  to  the  States
by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  provides  that:  “Excessive 
—————— 

1 I  join  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s  opinion  because  it  accurately  explains 
that,  even  accepting  the  Court’s  precedents,  the  Court’s  holding  in 
today’s cases is unsupportable.