THOMAS, J., dissenting

tion that was chronic and ongoing-like interracial housing in closely confined quarters within prisons dominated by racial gangs. Farmer, supra, at 843-844. Under Farmer, prison officials could have been ordered to take account of the very thing to which they may now have to turn a blind eye: inmates' race.

Finally, the majority presents a parade of horribles designed to show that applying the Turner standard would grant prison officials unbounded discretion to segregate inmates throughout prisons. See ante, at 513-514. But we have never treated Turner as a blank check to prison officials. Quite to the contrary, this Court has long had "confidence that . . . a reasonableness standard is not toothless." Abbott, 490 U. S., at 414 (internal quotation marks omitted). California prison officials segregate only double cells, because only those cells are particularly difficult to monitorunlike "dining halls, yards, and general housing areas." Ante, at 514. Were California's policy not so narrow, the State might well have race-neutral means at its disposal capable of accommodating prisoners' rights without sacrificing their safety. See Turner, 482 U. S., at 90-91. The majority does not say why Turner's standard ably polices all other constitutional infirmities, just not racial discrimination. In any event, it is not the refusal to apply-for the first time ever—a strict standard of review in the prison context that is "fundamentally at odds" with our constitutional jurisprudence. Ante, at 506, n. 1. Instead, it is the majority's refusal-for the first time ever-to defer to the expert judgment of prison officials.

IV

Even under strict scrutiny analysis, “it is possible, even likely, that prison officials could show that the current policy meets the test." 336 F.3d 1117, 1121 (CA9 2003) (Ferguson, J., joined by Pregerson, Nelson, and Reinhardt, JJ., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). As Johnson concedes, all States have a compelling interest in

THOMAS, J., dissenting

maintaining order and internal security within their prisons. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 18; see also Procunier, 416 U. S., at 404. Thus the question on remand will be whether the CDC's policy is narrowly tailored to serve California's compelling interest.13 The other dissent notes the absence of evidence on that question, see ante, at 518–521 (opinion of STEVENS, J.), but that is hardly California's fault.

From the outset, Johnson himself has alleged, in terms taken from Turner, that the CDC's policy is "not related to a legitimate penological interest." Johnson v. California, 207 F. 3d 650, 655 (CA9 2000) (per curiam) (discussing Johnson's Third Amended Complaint). In reinstating Johnson's equal protection claim following the District Court's dismissal, the Court of Appeals repeated Johnson's allegation, without indicating that strict scrutiny should apply on remand before the District Court.14 Ibid. And on remand, again Johnson alleged only that the CDC's policy "is not reasonably related to the legitimate penological interests of the CDC." App. 51a (Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 23).

After the District Court granted qualified immunity to some of the defendants, Johnson once again appealed. In his brief before the Court of Appeals, Johnson assumed that

13 On the majority's account, deference to the judgments of prison officials in the application of strict scrutiny is presumably warranted to account for "the special circumstances [that prisons] present," ante, at 515. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 328 (2003). Although I disagree that deference is normally appropriate when scrutinizing racial classifications, there is some logic to the majority's qualification in this case because the Constitution's demands have always been diminished in the prison context. See, e. g., Harper, 494 U. S., at 224; Abbott, 490 U. S., at 407; Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 85 (1987).

14 The Court of Appeals cited both Turner and Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333 (1968) (per curiam), for the proposition that certain constitutional protections, among them the protection against state-sponsored racial discrimination, extend to the prison setting. However, the Court of Appeals did not discuss the applicable standard of review, nor did it attempt to resolve the tension between Turner and Lee that the majority

THOMAS, J., dissenting

both Lee and Turner applied, without arguing that there was any tension between them; indeed, nowhere in his brief did Johnson even mention the words "strict scrutiny." Brief for Appellant in No. 01-56436 (CA9), pp. 20, 26, 2001 WL 34091249. Perhaps as a result, the Court of Appeals did not discuss strict scrutiny in its second decision, the one currently before this Court. The Court of Appeals did find tension between Lee and Turner; however, it resolved this tension in Turner's favor. 321 F. 3d, at 799. Yet the Court of Appeals accepted Lee's test at face value: Prison officials may only make racial classifications "in good faith and in particularized circumstances."" 321 F. 3d, at 797. The Court of Appeals, like Johnson, did not equate Lee's test with strict scrutiny, and in fact it mentioned strict scrutiny only when it quoted the portion of Turner that rejects strict scrutiny as the proper standard of review in the prison context. 321 F. 3d, at 798. Even Johnson did not make the leap equating Lee with strict scrutiny when he requested that the Court of Appeals rehear his case. Appellant's Petition for Panel Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in No. 01-56436 (CA9), pp. 4-5. That leap was first made by the judges who dissented from the Court of Appeals' denial of rehearing en banc. 336 F. 3d, at 1118 (Ferguson, J., joined by Pregerson, Nelson, and Reinhardt, JJ., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

Thus, California is now, after the close of discovery, subject to a more stringent standard than it had any reason to anticipate from Johnson's pleadings, the Court of Appeals' initial decision, or even the Court of Appeals' decision below. In such circumstances, California should be allowed to present evidence of narrow tailoring, evidence it was never obligated to present in either appearance before the District Court. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1031-1032 (1992) (remanding for consideration under the correct legal standard); id., at 1033 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) ("Although we establish a frame

THOMAS, J., dissenting

work for remand, . . . we do not decide the ultimate [constitutional] question [because] [t]he facts necessary to the determination have not been developed in the record").

Petitioner Garrison Johnson challenges not permanent, but temporary, segregation of only a portion of California's prisons. Of the 17 years Johnson has been incarcerated, California has assigned him a cellmate of the same race for no more than a year (and probably more like four months); Johnson has had black cellmates during the other 16 years, but by his own choice. Nothing in the record demonstrates that if Johnson (or any other prisoner) requested to be housed with a person of a different race, it would be denied (though Johnson's gang affiliation with the Crips might stand in his way). Moreover, Johnson concedes that California's prisons are racially violent places, and that he lives in fear of being attacked because of his race. Perhaps on remand the CDC's policy will survive strict scrutiny, but in the event that it does not, Johnson may well have won a Pyrrhic victory.

Syllabus

ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER v. SIMMONS

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

No. 03-633. Argued October 13, 2004-Decided March 1, 2005 At age 17, respondent Simmons planned and committed a capital murder. After he had turned 18, he was sentenced to death. His direct appeal and subsequent petitions for state and federal postconviction relief were rejected. This Court then held, in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, that the Eighth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the execution of a mentally retarded person. Simmons filed a new petition for state postconviction relief, arguing that Atkins' reasoning established that the Constitution prohibits the execution of a juvenile who was under 18 when he committed his crime. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed and set aside Simmons' death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release. It held that, although Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, rejected the proposition that the Constitution bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders younger than 18, a national consensus has developed against the execution of those offenders since Stanford.

Held: The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. Pp. 560–579.

(a) The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework this Court has established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be "cruel and unusual." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100-101. In 1988, in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 818-838, a plurality determined that national standards of decency did not permit the execution of any offender under age 16 at the time of the crime. The next year, in Stanford, a 5-to-4 Court referred to contemporary standards of decency, but concluded the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments did not proscribe the execution of offenders over 15 but under 18 because 22 of 37 death penalty States permitted that penalty for 16year-old offenders, and 25 permitted it for 17-year-olds, thereby indicating there was no national consensus. 492 U. S., at 370-371. A plural