Legal Docket

Use the filters on the left to browse our legal docket.  For more information on race equity arguments, use this tool.

Date
1 - 10 of 424 resultsReset
Keeping Kids in the Community

In re R.B.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief explained that attendance records are often incorrect and unreliable and should not, alone, support a finding of dependency. We emphasized that school records should be subject to the same indicia of reliability and rigorous interrogation as other business records – as required by the rules of evidence. The brief also argued that truancy does not justify the trauma and harm associated with subjecting a family to ongoing oversight or separating children from their families. Furthermore, the brief highlighted that the racial disparities in the Child Welfare system are exacerbated by dependency adjudications based on truancy alone and described the United States’ long legacy of systematically devaluing and dismantling Black families and discussed the ways in which Black children are disproportionately subject to punishment for truancy and placement in dependent care.
Youth Tried as Adults

People v. Joseph

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division •
The brief focused on (I) stark racial disparities in the administration of New York’s felony murder law, (II) the manifest injustice that occurred in Mr. Joseph’s case given the unavailability of a justification defense for the felony murder charge; (III) the felony murder doctrine’s dissonance with research on youth brain development; and (IV) the unconstitutional sentence imposed on Mr. Joseph as a result of these factors.
Keeping Kids in the Community

Gotay v. Green

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
We argued that (1) children in foster care have a substantive due process right to a safe living environment based on their clearly established special relationship with the Commonwealth, and (2) the proper legal standard for analyzing substantive due process claims by youth in foster care is whether the state actors responsible for their care substantially departed from accepted professional judgment, pursuant to Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). We also pointed out the importance of applying protective legal standards in such cases, given the grave risks of harm to youth in care and that Black and Hispanic/Latine youth are disproportionately represented in the Massachusetts system.
Youth Tried as Adults

State v. Moore

New Jersey Superior Court •
Our brief explained that the superpredator theory arose from a long history of dehumanizing Black people and the deeply entrenched stereotype that Black people are predisposed to violent criminality. We emphasized that although the superpredator myth was false, it had a lasting impact on legislation across the country. We further emphasized that life without parole sentences are disproportionately imposed on Black youth and emerging adults.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Czarnecki

Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that current research supports affording 19-year-olds the same sentencing protections under Miller that the Michigan Supreme Court previously extended to 18-year-olds in People v. Parks, 987 NW2d 161 (2022). We highlighted that 19-year-olds share essentially the same developmental characteristics as 18-year-olds, making them equally less culpable than older adults; that they are likely to desist from crime as they reach their late 20’s and early 30’s; and that mandatory life without parole and other extreme sentences disproportionately harm Black adolescents.
Keeping Kids in the Community

United States v. Skrmetti

U.S. Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the banned medical care both improves mental health and well-being and decreases suicide risk for transgender youth. The brief further argued that transgender health care bans disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, including transgender youth of color, those living in poverty or in rural areas, foster youth and youth involved in the juvenile legal system, and those experiencing housing instability.
Youth Tried as Adults

Pike v. State

Tennessee Supreme Court •
Our brief highlighted neuroscientific research demonstrating that older adolescents share the same developmental characteristics of youth relied upon by the Supreme Court in Roper and its progeny. We argued that, based on this scientific consensus, the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and evolving standards of decency, the imposition of the death penalty on older adolescents like Ms. Pike constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Jones

New Jersey Supreme Court •
Our amicus letter argued that late adolescents share the same developmental characteristics that provided the basis for the Court’s treatment of youth in Comer, and they are thus entitled to the same constitutional protections.
Keeping Kids in the Community

In re S.W.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
The brief argued that foster parent intervention in dependency matters undermines children’s long-term well-being by delaying permanency and increasing the likelihood of TPR. The brief further highlighted the United States’ legacy of systematically devaluing and dismantling Black families and the disproportionate rates of family separation and TPR experienced by Black children to show that allowing prospective adoptive parent standing will perpetuate these deeply entrenched racial and class biases. Finally, the brief argued that allowing prospective adoptive parent intervention will lead to increased costs associated with prolonged litigation.