October Term 2004 · Docket 03-633

Can states execute 17-year-olds for murder?

The dispute centers on whether executing a 17-year-old violates the Eighth Amendment.

Official caption
Roper v. Simmons
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. Layton argued the Court should maintain its prior precedent.

    He stated legislators should determine the minimum age for capital punishment.

    Mr. Waxman argued society's evolving standards of decency now draw the line.

    He contended everyone agrees some age limit exists for juvenile executions.

    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

This case tests the constitutional limit on juvenile capital punishment.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 13, 2004.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to ban executions for 17-year-olds.

the opposing side wants the Court to allow states to set their own age limits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues society's evolving standards now prohibit this punishment.

the opposing side argues legislators must decide the precise minimum age.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if states could adopt any definition of mental retardation.

Justice O'Connor asked if the Court must look at state approval statistics.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the constitutional floor for juvenile criminal responsibility. It determines whether states can impose the ultimate penalty on adolescents. The outcome shapes national standards for criminal sentencing. It impacts how courts treat young offenders in capital cases.

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