The Role of State Constitutionalism in Determining Juvenile Life Sentences

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court established a sweeping national precedent limiting the imposition of criminal sentences for juvenile offenders. However, it left many nuanced, unanswered questions for the states to resolve. This article uses a survey approach to examine the role of state courts, which employ both federal and state constitutional law, in interpreting and implementing the holding and principles of Miller. This article identifies and discusses the implementation trends among the states post-Miller and explores the role that dialogue between state courts has in resolving questions left open by the U.S. Supreme Court. A wide range of judicial approaches related to the understanding of judicial power in relation to coordinate branches of government is revealed.