Ebron v. Lamont

Since 2015, Connecticut lawmakers have grappled with the ramifications of sentencing young people to years—sometimes decades in prison. That year, the legislature passed a law that expanded parole eligibility to children under the age of eighteen. Then, in 2023, it passed a law that extended eligibility to people who committed a crime under the age of twenty-one. Originally, the bill was straightforward, anyone who committed a crime under twenty-one could be eligible for youth-based parole. But it was amended: the version that passed limited eligibility to people who were sentenced before October 1, 2005.

This law was designed to expand youth-based parole eligibility, but the addition of this arbitrary cut-off works against that intention. Instead of being able to tell their story and potentially return home, an entire group of people is denied that opportunity based on an arbitrary date. That kind of legislative line drawing is unconstitutional.

In April 2026, the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut sued on behalf of Brian Ebron, who is not eligible for parole solely because he was sentenced in 2007. The lawsuit contends that Mr. Ebron’s exclusion from consideration for parole violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is because the October 1, 2005, sentencing date cut-off is arbitrary and irrational: it doesn’t track sentencing reforms (those came after 2010, per a lawmaker’s own floor statement), doesn’t align with brain science, doesn’t reduce costs, and — critically — worsens racial disparities in sentencing.