Five years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Brett Jones, who challenged his sentence of life in prison without parole for killing his grandfather shortly after he turned 15. Jones vs. Mississippi Statenot only weakened sentencing protections for juvenile defendants, but also eroded the Eighth Amendment’s restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment more broadly. As I pored over the verdict, I felt hopeless that I, or anyone else, would ever succeed in mitigating the retributive sentence with compassion and mercy. After all, I’m a lawyer who lost a case.
prior to jonesA series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions limited extreme sentencing for juveniles. for example, Roper vs Simmons In 2005, the court completely banned the death penalty for people under 18. Miller vs. Alabama In 2012, the court asked sentencing courts to consider youth as a mitigating factor, granting life sentences without parole to only the rare juveniles whose crimes truly reflected “irreparable depravity.” In these cases, courts found that the juveniles’ immaturity and incomplete brain development made them less culpable for their actions, more likely to make amends, and more deserving of mercy.
No court found my client Jones irretrievably corrupt and sentenced him to death in prison. It seemed like an obvious mistake to me. I thought it would be easy to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse his sentence.
But by then jones Once he reached the High Court, the tide began to turn, starting with a lenient sentence. Two Trump appointees were in the audience when the high court agreed to hear the case. A third, Amy Coney Barrett, appeared in court less than two weeks before oral arguments following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ultimately, Barrett and five other Republican appointees voted against my client in a 6-3 decision.
Since then jonesthe Supreme Court not only failed to rein in extreme sentencing, but also more broadly rolled back Eighth Amendment protections. Meanwhile, more than 200,000 people in the United States are serving some type of life sentence.
Fortunately, the state Supreme Court stepped into the breach with increased independence and determination, creating a new jurisprudence of mercy based on the state constitution. These court efforts offer a hopeful blueprint for reducing extreme sentencing, one state at a time. In the post-jones Around the world, state courts are finding their own way forward, even as the Supreme Court remains stagnant and gridlocked.
within one year, jones Following this decision, I and my state public defender argued before the Michigan Supreme Court for a rule that would protect young murderous offenders from extreme punishment even after they reach the age of 18. I argued that a young man who commits murder cannot be automatically sentenced to life in prison without parole, given his diminished responsibility for his actions. Rather, the sentencing judge must have the option of imposing a lighter sentence. Ultimately, the state court agreed.
State supreme courts, not the U.S. Supreme Court, have the final say on how to interpret state constitutions and therefore have the power to create more merciful sentencing systems. Every state has its own constitution, and defendants charged with state crimes enjoy the protection of both state and federal constitutional provisions.
In many parts of the country, state lawsuits now provide far stronger protections against punishment than U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In addition to the Michigan decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that the state constitution prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for people under the age of 21. In 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went further, holding that life sentences without parole for people under 21 violate the state constitution, whether mandatory or not.
This trend is not limited to juvenile and young adult sentencing. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month considered felony murder charges. This would allow prosecutors to charge murder if the death occurred during the course of the underlying felony. For example, consider that a participant in a convenience store robbery is charged with murder because his accomplice unexpectedly shoots and kills a clerk. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that felony murder defendants cannot receive mandatory life sentences without parole unless they intended to commit murder.
To be sure, state constitutional protections have limits. Despite the general momentum of state court constitutionalism, many state courts continue to base their state constitutional rules on the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law. Jones now languishes in Mississippi’s Wilkison County Correctional Facility, serving a life sentence without parole for a crime he committed as a juvenile. The Washington, Michigan and Massachusetts rulings do not apply to him.
While state constitutional rulings will never replace a diminished U.S. Supreme Court, state laws have the potential to end the vast majority of excessive sentences. More than 85 percent of the 1.2 million people incarcerated in the United States are imprisoned for state crimes rather than federal crimes, meaning that state constitutions apply in the vast majority of extreme sentencing cases.
This is a reason for hope. The public has far more power over state courts than over federal courts. U.S. Supreme Court justices, like all federal judges, receive lifetime commissions from the president and the Senate, a process insulated from direct democracy. However, in most states, at least some state judges must run for election and re-election. This means ordinary people can change the face of the sentencing system and the wider legal system. Too often, voters disregard judicial elections. By becoming informed and active voters in judicial elections, citizens can help bend the law toward mercy and end unnecessary brutality in criminal sentencing.
David M. Shapiro is the executive director of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.
Recommended citation: David M. Shapiro, How to minimize the damage caused by a failed juvenile judgment caseSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (April 30, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/limiting-damage-juvenile-sentencing-case-i-lost
