Law360 (July 31, 2026, 6:43 PM EDT) -- Michigan's highest court has ruled that a 50- to 75-year sentence for a teenager convicted of second-degree murder was unconstitutionally cruel or unusual, calling the prison term "grossly disproportionate" in its latest ruling limiting severe sentences for young offenders.

The 6-1 decision issued Thursday built on the court's 2022 ruling in People v. Stovall, which banned parolable life sentences for juveniles convicted of second-degree murder. In the instant case, the justices found defendant James Eads' sentence was "at least as severe as a parolable life sentence."

According to the majority's opinion, it was unnecessary to reach the issue of precisely how many years should be considered excessive or a de facto life sentence under the state constitution.

"But we find it highly pertinent that the 50-year minimum sentence imposed here creates, at minimum, a good possibility that a youthful offender will not live long enough to even be eligible for parole," Justice Kimberly Thomas wrote in the opinion for the majority. "And under any metric, it is highly unlikely that a youthful offender will live long enough to reach the mandatory parole discharge date for a 75-year sentence."

The majority applied the court's sentence-proportionality test from its 1992 decision in People v. Bullock as it had in Stovall. The four-pronged test weighs the gravity of the crime relative to the severity of the sentence, sentences imposed for other crimes in the same jurisdiction and the same crime in other jurisdictions, and the goal of rehabilitation.

The state high court found Eads' sentence was harsher than those typically imposed on juvenile offenders for first-degree murder, and that the sentence did not advance the state's goal of rehabilitation.

Jon Wojtala, chief of appeals for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office called the opinion "expected but still disappointing," and said it was part of a trend in recent decisions involving youthful offenders.

"The court has chosen to expand protections for those who have committed violent murders while forcing victims and their families to relive their trauma at resentencing," he said in an email.

In 1992, Eads was 16 years old when he fatally shot a 17-year-old who was wearing a T-shirt that represented a rival street gang. Prosecutors charged him with first-degree murder, but jurors convicted him of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder.

At the time, sentencing guidelines recommended 12 to 25 years in prison or life with parole. But the trial court judge sentenced Eads as an adult to 50 to 75 years, with a two-year consecutive sentence for using a gun to commit a crime.

An appellate court affirmed the judgment in 1994, and the state Supreme Court denied Eads leave to appeal the following year.

In January 2021, Eads challenged his sentence in light of the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama, arguing his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to consider his youth as a mitigating factor. The state trial court rejected his motion, and an intermediate appellate court denied his application to appeal.

As Eads' petition to the Michigan Supreme Court was pending, justices issued the Stovall opinion. The high court remanded the instant case to the appellate court, which went on to find Eads' sentence was unconstitutional cruel or unusual punishment under Stovall and he must be resentenced. Prosecutors appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

On Thursday, Justice Brian Zahra dissented from the majority, saying Eads' challenge was procedurally barred and that the sentence was not cruel or unusual.

Justice Zahra said the majority also left a key question unanswered: "How much lower than a 50- to 75-year sentence does the Michigan Constitution reach?" He also wrote that lower courts will inevitably reach different conclusions that will eventually force the high court to draw an "arbitrary" line.

"The majority opinion rests its holding on Stovall's shaky reasoning, using inapt comparisons to parolable life sentences and the term-of-years sentences available for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder," according to the dissent. "It also invokes the dubious concept of de facto life sentences. Considered as a whole, the majority opinion's results-oriented legal analysis betrays the legislative intent behind this most recent chapter in this court's campaign to reform juvenile and young-adult sentencing."

Eads' attorney, Gabi Silver of Cripps & Silver Law, told Law360 on Friday she was pleased that her client and others like him in Michigan will "get a second chance out there in the world."

Eads is represented by Gabi Silver and Phillip Comorski of Cripps & Silver Law.

The state is represented by Kym Worthy, Jon Wojtala and Timothy Baughman of the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.

The case is People v. Eads, case number 168205, in the Michigan State Supreme Court.

--Editing by Covey Son.

Update: This story has been updated with a comment from the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.