Miller v. Alabama
On March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Miller v. Alabama, and must decide whether life sentences without parole are constitutional for minors. Not only will this case significantly impact the 2570 juveniles serving such sentences throughout the country, but also it could greatly influence future rulings on the Eighth Amendment.
Over the past decade, the Court has heard two cases involving criminal sentencing for minors. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court struck down capital punishment for minors, and five years later, in Graham v. Florida, the justices declared that a minor could not be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than murder.
The court will revisit issue again when considering Evan Miller, who at age fourteen assaulted a middle-aged man and subsequently set his trailer on fire. Miller was later convicted of murder and given a life sentence without possibility of parole. Miller appealed the decision, but the Alabama Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The case is likely to split along familiar lines. Conservatives justices like Clarence Thomas believe that sentences should be judged according to, “the standards that prevailed at the time of the founding.” Meanwhile, liberal justices adhere to the precedent set by former Chief Justice Earl Warren, that sentences should be judged according to the, “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
As with Graham, Justice Anthony Kennedy will probably cast the deciding vote, which will either send the Court in the direction of increasingly liberal readings of the cruel and unusual punishment clause or maintain the status quo. ¶
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
In the Citizens United (2010) decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could be considered persons, allowing them to spend unlimited sums on political advertising. The Court has begun examining the issue of corporate personhood during February oral arguments for Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.
The case questions whether corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue for damages for actions carried outside the United States in violation of U.S. law or international treaties. The suit, brought by Nigerian citizens, seeks damages against Royal Dutch Petroleum for allegedly helping the Nigerian government carry out torture and extrajudicial killings.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has already decided only individuals, not corporations, are liable under the Alien Tort Statute. However, the implications of Citizens United may sway the Supreme Court in a different direction.