October Term 2002 · Docket 01-6978

Does a 25-year sentence for stealing golf clubs violate the Eighth Amendment?

Gary Ewing seeks to overturn a 25-year prison term for stealing three golf clubs. California defends the sentence as a lawful application of its three-strikes law.

Official caption
Ewing v. California
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.
  2. — 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

    Quin Denvir represented Ewing during the oral argument.

    Paul De Nicola represented California during the oral argument.

    Paul D. Clement argued on behalf of the United States.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument session.

    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

Gary Ewing stole three golf clubs in Los Angeles. He received a 25-year prison sentence under California law. He argues this punishment is excessive. California argues the sentence fits its statutory scheme.

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

Ewing wants the 25-year sentence struck down as excessive.

California wants the 25-year sentence upheld as lawful.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Ewing argues the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime.

California argues the sentence follows its established three-strikes statute.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about the value of the stolen golf clubs.

Justice Breyer asked about statistics under California's old sentencing law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of state sentencing power. It determines whether states can impose long terms for minor crimes. It shapes how courts review proportionality claims 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