She had wrote “that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime does violate the 8th amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.” And that children and adults are constitutionally different from one another so the sentencing purpose should be different. This remanded and reversed the supreme court’s decision . John Roberts dissent opinion was that it “could not plausible be described” as unusual since a majority of states supports them. He tried to argue with a sense of morality and social policy where he stated that their duty was to no answer such question but to apply the law since it is their duty to do so. However, the convicted youths was re-sentenced because the case was remanded to the trial