State Settles Decade-Long Lawsuit Challenging Unconstitutional Punishment of Children with Life Behind Bars Without the Possibility of Parole
State law was declared unconstitutional resulting in over a hundred released back to their communities; settlement requires access to rehabilitative programming and sets timeline for resentencing and opportunity for release
DETROIT — The ACLU’s decade-long lawsuit against the State of Michigan over its unconstitutional practice of sentencing children to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole has been settled, pending review by the class members and approval of the court. The class action lawsuit, originally filed in 2010 on behalf of 350 individuals sentenced to life without possibility of parole for offenses they committed when they were children, resulted in a federal court ruling that the state law was unconstitutional. After the legislature rewrote the law, it was again declared unconstitutional and the state was ordered to provide hundreds of individuals with earlier opportunities for release.
Despite these rulings as well as decisions of the United States Supreme Court in 2012 and 2016 holding all mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, some prosecutors continued to delay resentencing hearings and continued to seek life sentences in cases with clear evidence of rehabilitation. The state, meanwhile, refused to provide rehabilitative programming to individuals who were awaiting resentencing even though such programming is widely available to others in prison.
This week’s settlement will establish a timeline for all prosecutors to promptly schedule the hearings to give these class members the opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and right to release. The settlement will also require access to rehabilitative programming that had been previously denied.
“This settlement presents an opportunity for prosecutors to put an end, once and for all, to the barbaric practice of locking children up for the rest of their lives and throwing away the key,” said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Dan Korobkin. “International law, the Constitution, scientific studies, and now the success of those who have been paroled all prove that children deserve a second chance.”
Over 360 people in Michigan were sentenced to life-without-parole for offenses committed when they were children, the second highest such number in the country. To date, 120 have been released and rejoined their families and communities because of this lawsuit.
“A majority of states have now abandoned the cruel life-without-parole sentence on children and we hope that Michigan prosecutors will take this opportunity to recognize that all children have the capacity for growth and rehabilitation and that allowing the parole board the opportunity to review and release them is the only humane way of proceeding,” said attorney Deborah LaBelle, who headed the litigation. “Moreover, we now see that despite the very lengthy and difficult sentences that our clients have served, after being held in adult prisons as children, for those who have been able to see the parole board, there has been a recognition that they pose no risk to public safety and all are leading productive lives. We cannot continue to deny what every parent and the world knows—children should not be punished the same as adults for their actions and we cannot continue to throw away Michigan’s children by imposing this sentence which denies all hope. It must end now.”
“We’re talking about thousands of years of prison time and hundreds of millions of dollars that could be saved by getting rid of a punishment that is rejected and scorned by every country in the world except for ours,” said Steven Watt, ACLU senior staff attorney with the Human Rights Program. “It is time to treat children as children and provide them programs and services that they need so they can grow into productive adults and return to society.”
Over a hundred class members have served decades in prison, sentences that have been declared cruel and unusual punishment. These sentences did not allow them any opportunity for release, even for those who demonstrated their rehabilitation. It was due to this litigation that some were released, including Henry Hill, who was locked up at the age of 16, and was released 37 years later in 2018.
“There are over 100 others just like me that are well deserving of their freedom and I am grateful this settlement will give them that second chance as soon as possible,” said Hill, a named plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.
This release and court filings are here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story