Back to top

Supreme court

Millbrook was being held in the custody of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) when she was sexually assaulted. She contends that sovereign immunity does not apply to the officers in this instance since the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives their immunity. The Supreme Court agreed that the FTCA allows for suits to be brought against federal law enforcement officers for committing intentional torts during the performance of their jobs. This judgement will positively impact the ability of federal inmates to file lawsuits against federal officers who commit sexual attacks in federal correctional facilities.

Millbrook v. United States, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Cover

"On Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2014, the second day of the Supreme Court’s 2014 term, the justices heard oral arguments in the case of Holt v. Hobbs, with important implications for corrections. At question in the case was whether or not the Arkansas Department of Correction’s (ADC) no-beard policy violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and whether the half-inch beard requested by inmate Gregory Houston Holt sufficiently satisfies the department’s security goals" (p. 64). Sections of this feature article cover: establishing the precedent for Holt's case--"Of the 44 states that allow inmates to grow at least a half-inch beard, 42 actually have no restrictions on facial hair length whatsoever" (p. 65); Holt's attorneys build a case; ADC's defense of the "No Beard" policy; oral arguments of Holt v. Hobbs; and ruling. "The court released its opinion on Jan. 20, 2015 and held that ADC’s grooming policy did, in fact, violate RLUIPA. ADC, it said, failed to show a “compelling interest” in preventing inmates from hiding contraband or disguising their identities. The court further stated that ADC failed to meet the “least restrictive means” standard, and security concerns could be satisfied by other means. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the court, which ruled unanimously, and overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of Holt. In short, the court held that RLUIPA and RFRA were passed by Congress "in order to provide very broad protection for religious liberty'" (p. 67).

Nation's Highest Court Cover

“In the past decade, the Supreme Court has transformed the constitutional landscape of juvenile crime regulation. In three strongly worded opinions, the Court held that imposing harsh criminal sentences on juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In combination, these cases create a special status for juveniles under Eighth Amendment doctrine as a category of offenders whose culpability is mitigated by their youth and immaturity, even for the most serious offenses. The Court also emphasized that juveniles are more likely to reform than adult offenders, and that most should be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they have done so. In short, because of young offenders’ developmental immaturity, harsh sentences that may be suitable for adult criminals are seldom appropriate for juveniles. These opinions announce a powerful constitutional principle—that “children are different” for purposes of criminal punishment … This report addresses the key issues facing courts and legislatures under this new constitutional regime, and provides guidance based on the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment analysis and on the principles the Court has articulated” (p. 1). The accompanying briefs to the report are: “Overview Brief: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing”, “Juvenile Sentencing in A Developmental Framework: The Role of the Courts”, and “Practitioner Brief: Applying a Developmental Framework to Juvenile Sentencing—What Forensic Experts and Attorneys Should Know” all three by Scott, Grisso, Levick, and Steinberg.

› The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing [and Accompanying Briefs] cover
Subscribe to Supreme court