Methena v Malvo

In 2012, in Miller v Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that awarding a life sentence without parole to a juvenile violated the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In 2016, the court, in Montgomery v Louisiana amplified that ruling by ruling that because Miller was substantive, i.e. of constitutional import, that the prohibition against life sentences without parole for juveniles was retroactive. This time Roberts added his vote to the 5-4 Miller decision making it 6-3. “When the Court establishes a substantive constitutional rule, that rule must apply retroactively because such a rule provides for constitutional rights that go beyond procedural guarantees.”

Come to the present case of Methena v Malvo. Malvo, at the time, 17 years old, was convicted of participating in the sniper shootings in Virginia in 2002. His older colleague was sentenced to death and executed in 2009. In Malvo’s case, the jury was asked to decide between the death penalty and life without parole. They chose the latter. Then along came Miller and Montgomery and Malvo’s lawyers are asking that since Montgomery made the prohibition retroactive, that Molvo’s sentences (he had ten life sentences) be vacated. Much of the questioning revolved around the issue of just using youth as a criteria, or whether incorrigibility, needed to be considered, as well.

It seemed to me rather straightforward given the outcome in Montgomery, but trying to guess how the justices would vote was not apparent from the oral arguments. Of course Scalia and Kennedy, both there for Miller and Montgomery, have been replaced by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but with Roberts the deciding vote plus one in Montgomery I would have to guess they might send it back to the 4th Circuit that had ruled for Malvo to bring in the idea of incorrigibility and the distinction between mandatory sentences of life as opposed to simply the application of a life sentence without parole. Semantics, indeed.