Graham v. Florida — Roberts, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment because Graham’s life-without-parole sentence was grossly disproportionate under existing narrow proportionality precedent, considering his youth, diminished culpability, the nature of his offenses, and the severity of the punishment. He rejected the Court’s categorical rule barring life without parole for all juvenile nonhomicide offenders, reasoning that proportionality should remain case-specific. Justice Thomas, joined in relevant parts by Justices Scalia and Alito, dissented from the Court’s categorical rule, while Justice Alito separately disputed consideration of an as-applied challenge and Justice Stevens defended evolving proportionality principles.