The impact of former President Donald Trump\u0026#039;s three appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court was illuminated on Thursday with a six-three ruling in which the right-wing justices rejected a challenge to life sentences issued to minors—a move that critics described as \u0022vile,\u0022 \u0022inhumane,\u0022 and \u0022really awful news.\u0022This case, Jones v. Mississippi, centered on Brett Jones, who fatally stabbed his grandfather in 2004, at age 15, during an argument about the boy\u0026#039;s girlfriend. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. His attorneys argued that violated the Eighth Amendment\u0026#039;s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, because the judge did not make a separate finding that he was \u0022permanently incorrigible,\u0022 or incapable of rehabilitation, which Mississippi allows.\u0022The United States is a global outlier in its harsh treatment of our youth, especially youth of color who are disproportionately sentenced to life imprisonment,\u0022 Josh Rovner, senior advocacy associate for the Sentencing Project, said in a statement. \u0022Today\u0026#039;s ruling emphasizes the urgency for all state legislatures and Congress to eliminate life without parole for people under 18, as 25 states and the District of Columbia have already done.\u0022Kavanaugh wrote the SCOTUS opinion holding that juveniles can be sentenced to life without parole. It’s an evil world we live in— Olayemi Olurin (@msolurin) April 22, 2021Although many states have restricted or outlawed life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles, legal experts framed the Thursday decision as \u0022a huge blow against the movement to end\u0022 JLWOP. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote what Mark Joseph Stern, Slate\u0026#039;s staff writer covering courts, called the \u0022dishonest and barbaric\u0022 majority opinion (pdf).Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court\u0026#039;s other two left-leaning justices, delivered a \u0022scathing\u0022 and \u0022extremely powerful\u0022 dissenting opinion. Her dissent, Stern wrote, \u0022pulls no punches in its biting rebuke of Kavanaugh\u0026#039;s duplicity and inhumanity. It doubles as an ominous warning that the conservative majority is more than willing to destroy major precedents while falsely claiming to uphold them.\u0022Today\u0026#039;s decision is pretty much the worst case scenario for opponents of juvenile life without parole (myself included). The court has abandoned precedent protecting juvenile defendants without admitting it. This decision will ensure that more JLWOP defendants die behind bars.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 22, 2021As Stern explained:The Supreme Court strictly curtailed the imposition of juvenile life without parole in two landmark decisions: 2012\u0026#039;s Miller v. Alabama and 2016\u0026#039;s Montgomery v. Louisiana...On Thursday, Kavanaugh overturned these decisions without admitting it. His majority opinion in Jones v. Mississippi claims fidelity to Miller and Montgomery while stripping them of all meaning. Kavanaugh wrote that these precedents do not require a judge to \u0022make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility\u0022 before imposing JLWOP. Nor, Kavanaugh wrote, do they compel a judge to \u0022at least provide an on-the-record sentencing explanation with an implicit finding of permanent incorrigibility.\u0022 Instead, a judge need only be granted \u0022discretion\u0022 to sentence a child to less than life without parole. So long as that discretion exists, Kavanaugh held, the Eighth Amendment is satisfied—even if the judge provides no indication that they actually considered the defendant\u0026#039;s youth, gauged their potential for rehabilitation, and nonetheless decided their crime reflected \u0022permanent incorrigibility.\u0022As Sotomayor noted in her extraordinary dissent, \u0022this conclusion would come as a shock to the Courts in Miller and Montgomery.\u0022 Those decisions explicitly required the judge to \u0022actually make the judgment\u0022 that the child is incorrigible. They also \u0022expressly rejected the notion that sentencing discretion, alone, suffices.\u0022 Kavanaugh claimed that he followed these precedents, Sotomayor wrote, but he \u0022is fooling no one.\u0022 (Justice Clarence Thomas, writing separately, was more honest than Kavanaugh: He acknowledged that the majority had subverted Montgomery, and supported openly killing it off instead of quietly overruling it while pretending to follow it.)\u0022Children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing,\u0022 Sotomayor wrote, referencing studies that have confirmed \u0022juveniles are less mature and responsible than adults.\u0022 Citing Miller, she added that \u0022juvenile offenders \u0026#039;must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.\u0026#039;\u0022Jones\u0026#039; lawyer made the case, according to NPR, that his client \u0022should have at least a chance at parole because he has shown he is capable of rehabilitation—he has earned a high school degree while behind bars and has been a model prisoner.\u0022Kavanaugh with his now classic \u0022I\u0026#039;m a total asshole but I don\u0026#039;t like people calling me an asshole so I\u0026#039;m going to add some language about how sorry I am to be acting like an asshole\u0022 opinion.— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) April 22, 2021\u0022Jones should know that, despite the court\u0026#039;s decision today, what he does in life matters,\u0022 wrote Sotomayor. \u0022So, too, do the efforts of the almost 1,500 other juvenile offenders like Jones who are serving LWOP sentences. Of course, nothing can repair the damage their crimes caused. But that is not the question.\u0022\u0022The question is whether the state, at some point, must consider whether a juvenile offender has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation sufficient to merit a chance at life beyond the prison in which he has grown up,\u0022 the dissenting justice concluded. \u0022For most, the answer is yes.\u0022This post has been updated with comment from the Sentencing Project.