Kyle C. Barry is director of the State Law Research Initiative, which filed the court brief. The People vs. Langston.

The Michigan Supreme Court could end one of criminal law’s most shocking injustices this year. That means people convicted of murder based solely on their role in another felony, such as being the getaway driver in a robbery that resulted in someone’s death, would be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For decades, the Michigan Supreme Court has been an outlier. While other state courts reflexively moved in step with the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous Eighth Amendment cases of “cruel and unusual” punishment, effectively leading to an epidemic of unchecked mass incarceration and huge prison sentences, Michigan’s judges gave life to the state constitution and its prohibition on “cruelty.” or Building on its own state-based jurisprudence, the Court has repeatedly expanded rights and curbed the state’s power to put people to death in prison, an effort that has recently transformed the Court from an outlier to a national trendsetter.

This trend is likely to continue The People vs. Langstonthe court heard arguments in December. Edwin Langston was convicted of robbing a grocery store in 1976. During the robbery, another man shot and killed the store owner. Although Langston was not in the store when the murder occurred and prosecutors did not present any evidence that he intended to kill anyone, he was still sentenced to death in prison. Langston argues that Michigan’s “cruel or unusual” punishment clause prohibits mandatory imposition of the law’s harshest penalties for “felony murder” cases like his. In a sense, Langston It’s relatively small. The Michigan High Court had already narrowed the state’s felony murder rules in 1980 by adding a requirement to prove “malice” (or intent). That means only those convicted more than 45 years ago will receive direct benefits. But even setting aside the “extremely cruel” practice (as one lawyer put it during oral argument) of permanently convicting people under sentencing practices that the state has long rejected, how the court decides on this constitutional issue could indicate the path it takes next. The measure could also ripple across the country, impacting other state courts and opening the door to reduced charges and other excessive punishment claims based on the nature of the crime in question, and could eventually eliminate life without parole altogether.

Although Michigan’s “cruel or unusual” precedent goes back more than a century, this seminal modern case was decided by the state Supreme Court in 1992, overturning the life without parole sentence of Ruth Bullock, a grandmother and longtime General Motors employee. Several years ago, Bullock drove to the Lansing airport to pick up Kenneth Hasson, who had flown in from Los Angeles with two suitcases filled with cocaine. After Hasson put the items in Bullock’s trunk, police stopped him and arrested everyone inside. Bullock denied any knowledge of drugs, but police found traces of cocaine in her purse and glove compartment. Based on that evidence, a jury convicted her of possessing more than 650 grams (just under a pound and a half) of cocaine. This was Bullock’s first and only drug conviction, but it didn’t matter. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Bullock appealed her sentence, calling it cruel and unusual, and her case went to the Michigan Supreme Court a year after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld identical sentencing laws under the Eighth Amendment. write in plural Hermelin vs. MichiganJustice Anthony Kennedy preached respect for state legislatures, at least tacitly accepting the “war on drugs” rhetoric about the cascading harms of drug possession and those responsible. He wrote that while “reasonable people may disagree as to the effectiveness of Michigan’s sentencing system,” “the dangers arising from drug crimes and the circumstances of the crimes committed here demonstrate that Michigan’s sentencing system is constitutional.”

in people vs blockBut the Michigan Supreme Court invoked its uniquely cruel ruling. or Unconventional provisions rejecting this clause, along with the state’s unique constitutional history Hermelinand vacate the life sentence without parole for drug possession. The court found that this decision was completely inconsistent with helping people rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, a goal “rooted in Michigan’s legal tradition” and critical to constitutional inquiry. It was also found that the severity of the sentence was not consistent with individual responsibility, which is the basis of criminal punishment. The court said it was “grossly unfair” to hold people responsible for the downstream effects of drug possession, and that mandating the death penalty in prison based on that theory was cruel and unconstitutional.

Years later, young people’s rights were further expanded through an emphasis on rehabilitation and personal responsibility. In 2022, courts handed down a series of decisions that protect young people with developing brains and emerging adults (those aged 17 and older) from the law’s harshest penalties. Among other precedents, the court prohibited mandatory sentences of life without parole for 18-year-olds. It creates a presumption for young people to live any life without parole, which prosecutors must rebut with evidence. and held it even to life and The chances of parole for young people convicted of second-degree murder are unconstitutionally harsh. Last year, the court went further, joining high courts in Washington and Massachusetts in banning mandatory life without parole for people under 21. (The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court went the furthest, prohibiting: all ) All these sentences are based on neuroscience that shows young people are less culpable and more capable of growing and changing.

Today, this type of state constitutional independence is becoming increasingly common, if not still the norm. In addition to Washington and Massachusetts, state appellate courts in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Iowa, and New Jersey have issued significant decisions expanding states’ constitutional anti-punishment powers, from prohibitions on all mandatory minimums for children to prohibitions on the death penalty.

In Michigan, Langston present the same theme. This case involves people in an essentially mitigating class of offenders, in this case based on the nature of felony murder and the lack of a willfulness requirement rather than young age, who remain incarcerated without consideration for rehabilitation. “This case highlights the universal cruelty of mandatory life without parole,” the MacArthur Center for Justice and the State Law Research Initiative, which I direct, wrote in a court brief. The plaintiffs are “old and debilitated prisoners who have all completed their service.” at least Social science experience shows that they have long since aged out of violent acts (if they ever did so) and now pose virtually no risk to public safety. ” And, of course, life sentences inevitably lead to warehousing the elderly and turning prisons into high-security, low-quality nursing homes.

favorable judgment in LangstonTherefore, it suggests further limits on lifetime terms, both in Michigan and elsewhere. Other states still have broad felony murder laws that are ripe for constitutional challenge and could follow suit. LangstonReid (in Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court is expected to rule someday on whether life sentences without parole for felony murder violate the state constitution). Beyond felony murder, there are categories of people for whom imposing the harshest penalties would be seemingly inconsistent with guilt. This includes people sentenced under “repeat offender” laws who were sentenced to life in prison for a relatively minor third offense. Or people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities who, with the right support, can safely reintegrate and contribute to their communities.

The more the Michigan Supreme Court and other state courts provide meaningful checks on extreme criminal penalties and require sentencing policies that are constitutionally commensurate with individual responsibility and justified by a legitimate purpose, the more it becomes intolerable to mandate life in prison for anyone. favorable judgment in Langston That would be the next step along that path.

Recommended Citation: Kyle C. Barry, Michigan High Court could break new ground with limits on excessive sentencingSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 22, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/michigan-high-court-could-break-new-ground-limiting-excessive-sentences