This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Bryan A. Stevenson, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, petitioner’s counsel argues that children are categorically prohibited from being subjected to life‑without‑parole sentences.
According to Mr. Stevenson, petitioner also points out that psychologists say long‑term judgments about rehabilitation of young people are unreliable.
According to John C. Neiman, Jr., according to John C. Neiman, Jr., respondent’s counsel argues that life‑without‑parole for aggravated murder offenders like Evan Miller aligns with national consensus, is morally justified, and serves legitimate penological goals.
Thirty‑nine jurisdictions allow life‑without‑parole for juveniles, and twenty‑seven of them make it the statutory minimum sentence.
Studies show juveniles, especially homicide offenders, are less likely to recidivate than many adult offenders.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the constitutional rule regarding juvenile life‑without‑parole sentences changes.
According to Mr. Stevenson, stevenson argued that there is an age at which the Court is obligated under the Eighth Amendment to deem a life‑without‑parole sentence unconstitutional.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Evan Miller)
According to Bryan A. Stevenson, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, children should be categorically prohibited from life‑without‑parole sentences.
According to Mr. Stevenson, psychologists say we cannot reliably predict long‑term rehabilitation of young people.
According to Mr. Stevenson, there is an age at which the Court must deem a life‑without‑parole sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
Respondent (Alabama)
According to John C. Neiman, Jr., according to John C. Neiman, Jr., life‑without‑parole for aggravated murder offenders aligns with national consensus and penological goals.
According to Mr. Neiman, statutes can be read to impose life‑without‑parole at the “age of transfer.”
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts opened the oral argument for Miller v. Alabama.
According to Bryan A. Stevenson, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, petitioner’s attorney, Bryan A. Stevenson, argued that juveniles should not receive life‑without‑parole.
According to John C. Neiman, Jr., according to John C. Neiman, Jr., respondent’s attorney, John C. Neiman, Jr., argued that life‑without‑parole is consistent with national consensus.
The Court recorded the procedural event that the case was submitted after argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case addresses how the legal system treats a vulnerable cohort of juvenile offenders who may be subject to excessive punishment.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- b84d9202c07a02774a70-r1-981ed7c7c3d7bb16.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.