Roper v. Simmons
United States Supreme Court
543 U.S. 551 (2005)
- Written by Walter Machniki, JD
Facts
Christopher Simmons (defendant) was sentenced to death following his conviction for a murder occurring when he was 17 years old. Simmons challenged his conviction on the ground that the application of the death penalty to a minor was unconstitutional and was not supported by international law. The United States Supreme Court previously considered constitutional challenges to the juvenile death penalty in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), where a plurality held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as trends in international law, prohibited application of the death penalty to persons under age 16 at the time of commission of the crime. The dissent strongly opposed the consideration of international practice on any matters relating to interpreting the United States Constitution. However, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), on the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty applied to persons aged 16 and 17, the application of the death penalty was upheld. Simmons argued in Missouri state court that after the Stanford decision, a new national consensus developed opposing application of the death penalty to juveniles that was supported by international law and foreign practice. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, and Roper (plaintiff) appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


