I'd missed noting this, but don't want to pass it over completely —> The Washington Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ended juvenile life without parole in the state. courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/9…
The US Supreme Court has ended juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses, and it also ended mandatory life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide.
The Washington Supreme Court took up what is referred to as the state's "Miller-fix statute," named after the SCOTUS ruling, which allows for 16-18 y/o's to be sentenced to life without parole for homicide convictions after individualized review. 
The majority decided that Washington's constitution, which provides more protection than the US Constitution, does not allow for any juvenile life without parole sentences.
Notably, one of the dissent's primary criticisms of the majority is that it did not actually provide an "independent source of state law" justifying its ruling.
Why does this matter? SCOTUS does not review state court decisions that are based on an "adequate and independent state grounds." But, if the state court decision is really based on the state court's interpretation of federal law, then SCOTUS can take jurisdiction and review it.
[At the end of the day, this doesn't really matter if the state doesn't have interest in seeking SCOTUS review — but I thought it was interesting that the dissent sure seemed to be trying to provide fodder for such a move, if it were to be sought.]
