Three Strikes Law - U.S. Supreme Court Response

U.S. Supreme Court Response

On March 5, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held by a 5–4 majority that such sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." In two separate opinions handed down on the same day, the court upheld California's three strikes law against an attack on direct appeal from conviction, Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, and a collateral attack through a petition for habeas corpus, Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003).

Writing for the plurality in Ewing, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor analyzed the serious problem of recidivism among criminals in California, applied rational basis review, and concluded:

We do not sit as a "superlegislature" to second-guess these policy choices. It is enough that the State of California has a reasonable basis for believing that dramatically enhanced sentences for habitual felons advances the goals of its criminal justice system in any substantial way … To be sure, Ewing's sentence is a long one. But it reflects a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference, that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and who continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated.

In his dissenting opinion in the companion Lockyer case, Justice David H. Souter shot back at the majority: "If Andrade's sentence ... is not grossly disproportionate, the principle has no meaning."