Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that “emerging adults” — individuals who are 18, 19, or 20 years old — can’t be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Relying on the Massachusetts Constitution’s prohibition against “cruel or unusual punishments” and building on a 2013 Massachusetts decision that barred such sentences for minors, Commonwealth v. Mattis is the first time a state high court has prohibited life without parole for people under 21.

It’s a major development in state constitutional limits on punishment. Notably, Mattis offers far more protection than defendants receive under federal Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In a 2011 case called Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited mandatory life sentences for minors but still allowed life sentences to be imposed on juveniles as a matter of discretion. Young people who had already turned 18 didn’t qualify for even this limited protection.

Massachusetts had already parted ways with Miller to bar juvenile life sentences without parole. However, Mattis extends this protection to young people who are no longer minors, relying heavily on scientific research indicating that emerging adults’ brain development is similar to that of juveniles. (One concurrence noted that “any parent of adult children can tell you” that the transition from childhood to adulthood isn’t a “binary act accomplished at age eighteen.”)

The 4–3 ruling attracted multiple concurrences and dissents, all of which are well worth a read. In the immediate term, about 200 people serving life sentences are expected to become eligible for parole hearings as a direct result of Mattis. But to understand the ruling’s broader implications, State Court Report turned to three experts to produce a small essay series. (This is a new way of covering cases for us, so please send us feedback about whether you’d like to see more essay series like this!)

Kristina Kersey, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee who also worked in youth defense for more than 20 years, offers an overview of where and how courts have interpreted state constitutions to provide unique protections to young people. Urging courts to “have the courage to treat kids like kids,” Kersey situates Mattis alongside significant rulings in New Jersey, Washington, and several other states.

Kyle C. Barry of the State Law Research Initiative praises the legal reasoning adopted by the Massachusetts high court, which applied a “categorical framework” that assesses whether life in prison for emerging adults is consistent with “contemporary standards of decency.” Too often, Barry argues, courts have instead focused on whether a sentence is “grossly disproportionate” to the offense, which as a practical matter has done little to constrain draconian punishments.

Miriam Seifter, a professor and codirector of the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, rounds up recent scholarly work on state public law. Topics range from constitutional conventions to criminal sentencing, and Seifter also highlights two recent symposia. Read more

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in an appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a Stetson University law professor and Brennan Center fellow, looks at how different state courts have addressed challenges to Trump’s eligibility. She argues that the “disparate results can be explained in part by differences in state election laws and state procedures.” Read more

Mandamus is an old common law remedy that allows a court to order government officials to perform their public duties. Jonathan Marshfield, an associate professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, does a deep dive into state mandamus — and explains how “today’s political environment is combining with mandamus to bring state courts (especially state high courts) to the fore of many hotly contested issues.” Read more

Martha Davis, a law professor at Northeastern University, gives an overview of a pending Massachusetts case considering the application of the Second Amendment to laws regulating switchblades. At oral argument, she writes, the justices seemed “reluctant to fully turn over the state’s weapon regulations to the dictates of a federal judiciary insensitive to the state’s own historic values.” Read more

Last year the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the state’s six-week abortion ban, which was passed when Roe v. Wade was still in effect, under an unusual state constitutional provision providing that legislative acts that violate the state or federal constitutions are void. Widener Law School professor Quinn Yeargain analyzes the ruling and explains that “core civil rights challenges to the law” are still pending in the lower court. Read more

Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Wisconsin Supreme Court
Ruled that Republican-drawn legislative maps violate the state constitution because the districts are not contiguous. // Wisconsin Examiner

Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Wisconsin Supreme Court
Motion for relief from judgment filed in case challenging Wisconsin’s congressional map, arguing that the court’s recent decision in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission striking down the state’s legislative map “renders the current congressional map . . . lawless.” // Wisconsin Public Radio

Held v. Montana, Montana Supreme Court
Denied Montana’s motion for a stay pending appeal. A trial court held that a state law barring state officials from considering climate change impacts in their environmental assessments violates the state constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.” // ABC News

Trump v. Bellows, Maine Superior Court (trial court)
Stayed a ruling by the secretary of state removing Donald Trump from the ballot, pending U.S. Supreme Court review of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision barring Trump from that state’s ballot. // CNN

You can find briefs and opinions from notable state constitutional lawsuits in our State Case Database.

IN-PERSON EVENT (New York)   IN-PERSON EVENT — The Promise and Limits of State Constitutions Thursday, February 8, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Friday, February 9, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. New York City RSVP for this free in-person event State courts and constitutions are taking on new prominence as primary protectors of individual rights. The Brennan Center, State Court Report, and the NYU Law Review invite you to a symposium exploring the role and importance of state constitutions. Join us for a live two-day event at NYU School of Law’s Vanderbilt Hall. The panels will feature judges, academics, and lawyers ready to dive into the nuances and importance of state constitutional law. Produced by State Court Report, the Brennan Center, and the NYU Law Review Click here for the list of speakers. RSVP