Ewing v. California — Stevens, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, dissents from the Court’s affirmation that California’s three‑strikes sentence for Gary Ewing is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. The dissent argues that proportionality review is required for imprisonment sentences and that Ewing’s 25‑year‑to‑life term is excessive given the modest value of the theft. It also notes that the majority’s reasoning departs from the proportionality framework articulated in Solem and Harmelin. The dissent is joined by a separate dissent by Justice Breyer and several concurrences that emphasize differing views on the scope of the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality principle.