OK! So, I just listened to the #SCOTUS arguments in Mathena v. Malvo, about juvenile life sentences without the possibility of parole. (Arguments were on Wednesday, but SCOTUS doesn't post until Friday.) AUDIO: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments… 
Here's background on the case at @SCOTUSblog —> scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
First thought: VA @AGMarkHerring should be embarrassed. The state's Democratic AG put out an over-the-top, fire-breather political statement. In court, though, his SG argued that technical rules about retroactivity and federal habeas procedure are what prevent Malvo's claim.
#SCOTUS has held repeatedly juveniles can't be sentenced to life w/o the possibility of parole unless courts consider whether the youth is "permanently incorrigible." VA did not do so in Lee Boyd Malvo's case. He deserves such consideration. Malvo's lawyer, Danielle Spinelli:
Virginia can't even really argue with the latter part — which is why their arguments boil down to retroactivity questions and habeas procedures. Here's Virginia's SG, Toby Heytens:
Here's the Dem Virginia AG's top Supreme Court lawyer arguing that criminal law rules restricting defendants' rights — Teague restricts when people w/ final sentences can benefit from court rulings against the law that is why they are in prison — are what stand in Malvo's way.
Really wild note: The US DOJ — yes, under President Trump and AG Bill Barr — doesn't go as far as Virginia in saying how little should be required to constitute a state "considering" the immaturity v. incorrigibility question. Here's Assistant to the (US) SG Eric Feigin:
Here was the Virginia SG's answer:
Just to be clear, though, that US DOJ part was just as to a specific hypothetical. DOJ in general, is supporting Virginia here, wanting juveniles to more easily be given life sentences without the possibility of parole.
This — at pp. 29-31 — is the most important part of the oral argument, IMHO, and although he only got a few words in, if you read through it, you see that Kavanaugh has a really crisp understanding of the role and rule of the "permanently incorrigible" consideration.
Ultimately, this is why consideration of "age"—unless that consideration clearly incorporates Miller/Montgomery—wouldn't seem to be enough consideration, b/c it doesn't necessarily include the incorrigibility/immaturity consideration. Spinelli got into this a bit with Gorsuch:
Two points here, both relating to Spinelli doing an excellent job at the podium:
1. Look at this crisp, mid-argument answer of what the respondent is seeking in response to a hostile question.
2. "[I]f one is permanently incorrigible, that's a permanent quality" is perfect.
1. Look at this crisp, mid-argument answer of what the respondent is seeking in response to a hostile question.
2. "[I]f one is permanently incorrigible, that's a permanent quality" is perfect.
On that second point, her answer showed just how far Alito is from the point. She knows she's not getting his vote, so this was a direct way of showing the rest of the bench the whole point of why juvenile sentencing is so screwed up that #SCOTUS keeps weighing in to address it.
Finally, really interesting to go through the entire argument without a question from Breyer until the last moments. When Breyer tells the VA SG that he thinks VA is pretty clearly wrong on the substance, Heytens just goes, "Well, then Teague."
In sum, it didn't go well for Virginia, and the Democratic leadership of the ~Commonwealth~ should be embarrassed this appeal was even brought. Giving people constitutional treatment in sentencing shouldn't be something that officials seek to get out of through technicalities.
Oh, and here's the oral argument transcript link: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
