Federal Law & Legal System – Page 96 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

SCOWIS Approves LWOP for 14-Year-Old Killers

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:May 20, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Criminal Law & Process U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

Today, in State v. Ninham, 2011 WI 33, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the sentence of life without possibility of parole for fourteen-year-olds who are convicted of first-degree intentional homicide. The decision rests on a narrow reading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark holding last year in Graham v. Florida, in which the Court outlawed LWOP for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes. Since Graham, lower courts across the country have been wrestling with the implications of the decision for other categories of offenses and offenders.

Ninham’s challenge was framed as a categorical challenge to the use of LWOP against fourteen-year-olds. As such, the challenge was appropriately assessed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court using the two-prong analysis of Graham, (1) determining whether there is a national consensus against the challenged practice, and (2) exercising independent judgment as to whether the practice constitutes an unconstitutionally severe punishment.

As to the first prong, although a large majority of states authorize LWOP for fourteen-year-olds, the sentence is in practice very infrequently imposed:

Ratner: Even Osama Should Have Had Criminal Rights

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:May 17, 2011
Post category:Civil Rights Criminal Law & Process Human Rights President & Executive Branch Prisoner Rights Speakers at Marquette

Michael Ratner would have treated the pursuit of Osama bin Laden as a law enforcement matter, not as a matter of war. He would rather have seen bin Laden arrested, brought to trial, and given the rights of a criminal defendant than shot on the spot by Navy SEALS.

This almost certainly doesn’t put Ratner in the mainstream of American opinion, but it is consistent with what Ratner has advocated as president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based non-profit organization, and as an attorney who has played key roles in defending the legal rights of prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and in opposing interrogation techniques Ratner considers torture.

Ratner visited Eckstein Hall last week to speak to about 20 people at a lunch session of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Milwaukee Lawyer Chapter.

Ratner realizes where the preponderance of American opinion lies on the killing on May 1 of bin Laden. “No one really cares whether he was lawfully killed or not,” he said. “People wanted him killed.”

Greenhouse Gases, and Other Hot Air

Post author:Gabe Johnson-Karp
Post published:May 12, 2011
Post category:Environmental Law U.S. Supreme Court

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court is faced with the next, inevitable step in a line of climate change litigation including, most notably, Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007. The case includes, as did Massachusetts, a jurisdictional question of whether the plaintiff states and land trusts have standing, either under Article III or under the “prudential” principles of standing. Perhaps of broader interest, however, is the substantive question facing the Court, which is whether, in light of the powers vested in the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, a federal common law public nuisance claim is the proper course by which to seek redress for the rise in global temperatures to which the defendants are alleged to be substantial contributors.

The power companies’ and the government’s positions in this case are mostly aligned, in that both seek to have the complaint dismissed, although on slightly different jurisdictional grounds.