The Supreme Court decided more than just the Arizona immigration and Montana campaign-finance cases yesterday; by a 5–4 margin, it struck down state laws that impose mandatory sentences of life-without-parole (LWOP) on juveniles who have committed murder. The Court left open the possibility of discretionary juvenile LWOP sentences, provided that the sentencing judge takes into account the defendant’s youth and maturity.

I don’t have much to say about this ruling—Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is too hopelessly subject to national surveys, multi-factor balancing tests, and the whims of Justice Kennedy to begin to discuss here—other than to point out one glaring ray of light: unlike past such cases, the Court did not cite foreign law as support for its ruling. I’ve pointed out the problems with doing that many times before, and Cato even joined a brief two years ago specifically on this issue in the case involving juvenile LWOP for non-homicide crimes. Suffice it to say, whatever you think about “cruel and unusual punishment,” the only society whose “evolving standards of decency” are relevant to interpretations of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment is the United States.

More on this point from Hans Bader over at CEI’s blog.