October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1127

Does a 15-year sentence for petty theft violate the Eighth Amendment?

California seeks to uphold a 15-year prison term for minor theft. The defendant argues this punishment is grossly disproportionate.

Official caption
Lockyer v. Andrade
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Danzig argued the Ninth Circuit erred in applying habeas review principles.

    Mr. Chemerinsky argued the sentence violates established Eighth Amendment limits.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist called the case and noted it was submitted.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether a specific prison sentence violates constitutional limits on punishment.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 5, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The state wants the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit decision.

The defendant wants the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit decision.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The state argues the Ninth Circuit failed to properly apply habeas review principles.

The defendant argues the sentence violates a century of Eighth Amendment precedent.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the case was submitted at 12:10 p.m.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the constitutional boundary for prison sentences in minor theft cases. It determines whether states can impose lengthy terms for small crimes. The outcome shapes future sentencing standards nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON