Source: https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2018/07/with-justice-kennedy-retiring-overturning-harmelin-should-become-a-focal-point-for-criminal-justice-.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:13:26+00:00

Document:
There are lots of important Supreme Court precedents that lots of people will be discussing in the wake of Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Court. Decisions like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are, obviously, of great concern to a great many. But for criminal justice reformers, there is one particular precedent, Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), that I think should become a focal point for aggressive advocacy seeking to overrule a lousy Eighth Amendment precedent.
As discussed here a few months ago, in a terrific recent First Circuit opinion while denying rehearing en banc in United States v. Rivera-Ruperto, No. 12-2364 (1st Cir. Feb 27, 2018) (available here), Judge David Barron lamented how judges "have no choice but to approve mandatory 'forever' sentences ... so long as they can hypothesize a rational reason for the legislature to have thought that the underlying criminal conduct was as serious as the large quantity drug possession at issue in Harmelin." In so doing, Judge Barron highlighted not only questionable elements of the Harmelin ruling, but also stressed the possible impact of "two lines of Supreme Court precedent that have developed since Harmelin was decided" (referring to Alleyne and Graham/Miller). Though not quite calling for Harmelin to be overruled, Judge Barron, writing on behalf of the entire First Circuit, makes clear that he is urging SCOTUS to reconsider the "three-decades old, three-Justice concurrence in Harmelin."
The author of the key "three-Justice concurrence in Harmelin" was, of course, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and no other member of the current Court was serving when Harmelin was decided. So, once Justice Kennedy's replacement is seated, it will be a whole new Court available to reconsider Harmelin without any existing member eager to make the case that Harmelin was right. Moreover, as the retired Justice Stevens noted in this interesting 2010 speech about Harmelin, Chief Justice Roberts' concurrence in Graham could be read as an indication he might be open to a return to the more defendant-friendly Eighth Amendment approach as set forth in Solem. And, as noted in this prior post, the newest Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is seemingly more often voting in favor of federal criminal defendants in contested cases than against them. We know Justice Thomas does not like the Harmelin precedent, but that is because he does not think the Eighth Amendment limits the length of prison sentences at all. And Justice Alito seems unlikely to want to expand the reach of the Eighth Amendment (though I have long believed he nearly signed on to Chief Justice Roberts' Graham concurrence). We do not know who will be replacing Justice Kennedy, so we cannot yet make informed speculations about how he or she might vote on this issue. But if Prez Trump picks someone in the mold of Justice Gorsuch, that could mean yet another Justice with an open mind on these kinds of issues.
Notably, the Justices have already decided to take up a case concerning the Eighth Amendment for next Term, Timbs v. Indiana. Though that case only technically concerns "whether the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment," perhaps Justices engaged already by the topic of possibly excessive financial sanctions might want to give some more thought to possibly excessive prison punishments. More to my main point, I sincerely think criminal defense lawyers and advocates should be trying regularly and persistently to "litigate against" each of the three potent essentials of Harmelin by arguing against the constitutionality of (1) extreme applications of mandatory sentences and/or (2) extreme applications of life without parole sentences and/or (3) extreme applications of drug possession sentences. Shrewd arguments for those facing extreme sentences ought to include a claim of unconstitutionality even applying Harmelin, but also be sure to preserve a claim that Harmelin is no longer good law.
I am not confident the Court will be eager to reconsider Harmelin anytime soon, but very slim chances may have gone up just a little with Justice Kennedy's retirement. And the best and really only chance to get Harmelin before the Court is to keep asking and asking and seeking and seeking and knocking and knocking.
The first case that should be overruled is Zavydas v. Davis.
federalist: Wasn't Kennedy in the dissent in that one? Seems like his retirement does not change the math, though perhaps you think some new rulings or developments do.
As a member of the criminal defense bar, I would certainly welcome overturning Harmelin, which now very much seems to be a product of 80s/90s anti-drug hysteria (as was Employment Division v. Smith, though it involved a totally different area of law). As it stands now, under Harmelin, the Eighth Amendment is essentially a dead letter when it comes to challenging any term of imprisonment, no matter how draconian or disproportionate it may seem to the offense.
Yeah, I can't remember the last Eighth Amendment challenge I raised because I don't handle juvenile or capital cases. I realize the cases that should be reversed are few and far between, but it's not even worth making the argument in those cases.
That being said, I don't think the Supreme Court likes opening up broad and ill-defined areas of litigation that have to be handled on a case by case basis.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.