Case Citator › Montgomery v. Louisiana

Montgomery v. Louisiana

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
577 U.S. 190
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
105 of 105
Citing cases (total)
2,666
Treatment dates
2021
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Montgomery v. Louisiana has been fully screened: all 105 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Jones v. Mississippi preserved Montgomery's core holding that Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively, but confined Montgomery's permanent-incorrigibility language and its retroactivity methodology.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Montgomery positively, reported its displacement of contrary state precedents, or used nearby treatment language for other authorities. Post-Jones state opinions disagreed about the breadth of that clarification, so the treatment is anchored on the Supreme Court's own opinion.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,666 later cases cite Montgomery v. Louisiana; 105 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Montgomery v. Louisiana?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Court limited Montgomery by holding that it did not add a permanent-incorrigibility finding to Miller and that its disputed retroactivity reasoning does not govern rules other than Miller.

    Jones v. Mississippi · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In short, Miller followed the Court’s many death penalty cases and required that a sentencer consider youth as a mitigating factor when deciding whether to impose a life-without-parole sentence. Miller did not require the sentencer to make a separate finding of permanent incorrigibility before imposing such a sentence. And Montgomery did not purport to add to Miller’s requirements. ... [T]o the extent that Montgomery’s application of the Teague standard is in tension with the Court’s retroactivity precedents that both pre-date and post-date Montgomery, those retroactivity precedents—and not Montgomery—must guide the determination of whether rules other than Miller are substantive. ... To be clear, however, our decision today does not disturb Montgomery’s holding that Miller applies retroactively on collateral review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Montgomery v. Louisiana and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace