The following is a transcript of a panel at “State Constitutions and the Limits of Criminal Punishments,” which took place at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey, on October 24, 2024. The transcript is edited for clarity.
The panelists — all state supreme court justices — discussed the vital role of state constitutional law in addressing excessive sentencing, especially as federal precedent narrows. They urged attorneys to raise state constitutional claims early and build strong factual records, including scientific and historical evidence. The justices also highlighted the value of comparative analysis, drawing from other states and even other countries. Their core message: state courts have the authority—and duty—to interpret their own constitutions independently, but they rely on advocates to make the case.
Speakers:
- Hon. Goodwin Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
- Hon. Scott L. Kafker, Associate Justice, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Hon. Rowan D. Wilson, Chief Judge, New York Court of Appeals
Moderator:
- Alicia Bannon, Director, Judiciary Program and Editor in Chief, State Court Report, Brennan Center for Justice
Transcript is forthcoming.
Related Commentary
California’s Racial Justice Act Goes to Court
The California Supreme Court overturned a death sentence but diluted the law’s protections, two justices said.
Habeas and Happy the Elephant
A Bronx Zoo elephant that died last week was made famous in litigation over whether habeas corpus can be used to challenge the confinement of nonhuman animals.
Perhaps Unexpectedly, State Constitutions Sometimes Offer Narrower Rights than the U.S. Constitution
The Ohio Supreme Court recently held that the state right to counsel is not as robust as its federal counterpart.
Fines, Fees, and Bail in State Courts
Recent state supreme court cases, including a major California ruling last week, address the burden of court-imposed financial obligations on criminal defendants.