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
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.
Limiting the Damage of the Juvenile Sentencing Case I Lost
Half a decade after the U.S. Supreme Court signaled it wouldn’t extend protections for children facing life without parole, state constitutions offer hope.
The Right to Counsel in an Age of Case-Specific and Systemic Inadequacies
State courts and constitutions can offer meaningful solutions to federal gaps in the right to counsel.