you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision that places new state constitutional limits on punishment. Relies on Pennsylvania’s Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel punishment,” breaking previous state precedent. Commonwealth v. Lee Prohibits life imprisonment without parole for defendants convicted of felony murder. This is the first time a state Supreme Court has upheld such a restriction.
Lee As Professor Martha Davis of Northeastern Law School explains in her own thoughtful analysis of the decision, the decision is groundbreaking for many reasons. first, Lee This is a widely used but often criticized legal doctrine that allows a defendant to be charged with murder if he or she is involved in a serious crime, such as robbery, during which someone dies.
As the Pennsylvania Superior Court pointed out, there is no intentionality requirement for felony murder and it “does not distinguish between the lookout and the trigger-pulling murderer.” in LeeThe defendant, who had participated in the robbery, was not even in the room at the time of the murder. Forty-eight states recognize some form of felony murder. Pennsylvania and 10 other states require life sentences, similar to federal law.
Until now, constitutional challenges to the kind of harsh sentences that can arise in felony murder cases have typically run up against the marble walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. Other than limits on the death penalty and some limited protections for juveniles, courts have recognized few federal constitutional limits on disproportionate sentencing.
And while many state high courts have broken with the Supreme Court to grant stronger state constitutional protections regarding criminal penalties, these decisions have generally focused on age-based sentencing limits. For example, in 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a unique and significant ruling prohibiting life without parole sentences for individuals under the age of 21.
LeeBut they took a different, potentially broader, approach. It evaluates the cruelty of mandatory life sentences in prisons based on prison characteristics. crimenot the defendant. In its analysis, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court scrutinized the legitimacy of applying similarly harsh penalties to the “wide variety of criminal acts and varied responsibilities for murder” reflected in the felony murder conviction. This was cruel, the court explained, because it would impose the harshest possible prison sentence without any assessment of individual responsibility. The court also concluded that imposing a mandatory life sentence under these circumstances does not meet any of the traditional punishment justifications of rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, or incapacitation.
The court wrote forcefully about why the Pennsylvania Constitution provides stronger protections than the Eighth Amendment. Differences in text were one important factor. Pennsylvania prohibits “cruel punishment,” even if it is not uncommon.
The court also relied heavily on recent historiography that identifies a “‘uniquely Pennsylvanian’ view of punishment” rooted in Quaker values and Enlightenment ideas, which made the state’s framers especially sensitive to concerns about personal responsibility and values of deterrence and reform. The court contrasts this with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to evaluate the Eighth Amendment’s history, “emphasizing retaliation as a justification for punishment and limiting its protections to punishments that no longer apply.”
This reassessment of history was also a key reason the court broke with 44 years of precedent holding state constitutional protections to be coextensive with the Eighth Amendment. agree with LeeJustice David Vecht also expressed skepticism of any decision that would link the meaning of the Pennsylvania Constitution to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. “When we push the jurisprudential wagon to someone else’s judgment, we unfairly constrain our successors,” he said.
I would like to conclude with a note to students and other researchers. The historical scholarship relied on by the court has been described as “groundbreaking” and was published just months after author Kevin Bendesky graduated from law school. (Bendesky also summarizes his research: state court report.) If you are looking for an original research topic in this field, state court reportKatrina Szymbowski Volcott and Nancy Watzman of recently provided key points from their excellent 2024 Symposium on State Constitutions and Penalties, with transcripts and links to videos. Rutgers University Law Overview and co-sponsored by the State Law Research Initiative and the Brennan Center.
I’ve wondered countless times about the history of certain state constitutional provisions, only to realize that no relevant scholarship exists. as Lee It highlights that there is a lot to unearth by digging into state constitutions and a huge opportunity to make an impact.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief state court report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon Pennsylvania Supreme Court limits mandatory life sentencesSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (April 7, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/pennsylvania-supreme-court-limits-mandatory-life-sentences
