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 432 resultsReset
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

In re K.R.C.

Wisconsin Supreme Court •
Our brief emphasized that when determining whether an individual is in custody, courts must assess every custody factor from a reasonable child’s perspective. The reasonable child standard is required by the Supreme Court in J.D.B., which recognized children’s vulnerability in interrogation settings. We argued that properly applying the reasonable child standard shows Kevin was in custody and that interrogations in schools should be presumptively custodial due to students' restricted movement and heightened susceptibility to pressure.
Youth Tried as Adults

Castaner v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court •
We argue that a lengthy term of years sentence of 42-to-75 years imposed on a 15-year-old violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. We further argued that Mr. Castaner’s 42-year minimum sentence not only exceeds other Wyoming sentences but also exceeds the maximum sentence allowed for second-degree murder in most jurisdictions across the country and exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment permitted before parole eligibility – 25 years – under Wyoming law for a life sentence for first-degree murder, making his 42-year minimum sentence for second-degree murder disproportionate and arbitrary in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Hazard

Colorado Supreme Court •
Our brief presented substantial research demonstrating that older adolescents, including 19-year-olds like Mr. Hazard, share the same developmental characteristics the Supreme Court relied on in Miller to hold that mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional for youth under 18 and urged the court to o follow the lead of state supreme courts in Michigan, Massachusetts, and Washington, which have all recently found that mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional for youth under 21.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Daniel v. State

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals •
We argued that Mr. Daniel did not receive an individualized sentencing hearing to assess his youth and its attendant characteristics, as required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022). We further argued that Mr. Daniel’s youth was likely used against him due to the racist “superpredator” myth that led to the disproportionate punishment of Black youth like Mr. Daniel in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Extended Foster Care

Jonathan R. v. Morrisey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit •
Amici argued that the district court’s order has far-reaching consequences that will deprive youth of systemwide remedies for violations of their constitutional rights and that institutional reform litigation is necessary to secure constitutional protections, particularly for historically marginalized groups, and has delivered meaningful, long-lasting results.
Keeping Kids in the Community

K.W. v. City of New York

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit •
The brief argued that the fundamental right to family integrity extends to children and that in order to protect children’s right to family integrity, it is essential to protect children’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless “emergency” removals by requiring agencies to take a narrowly tailored approach in their interventions and applying a rigorous and strict standard of review when evaluating those interventions. Additionally, the brief emphasized that children suffer long-term emotional and psychological harm that negatively impact them in adulthood when they are unnecessarily separated from their parents.
Extended Foster Care

M.M. v. King

Michigan Court of Appeals •
Our brief highlighted the unique and devastating harms that youth in the foster system suffer when they are banned from visiting their incarcerated parents in person, including the perspectives of Juvenile Law Center’s youth advocates with experience navigating these harms. Our brief further argued that in-person visits with incarcerated parents are critical to the wellbeing of children in the foster system, especially because visitation is crucial to the goal of family reunification. Finally, we discussed the ways in which St. Clair County Jail’s ban on in-person family visits entrenches racial and economic disparities. Our brief details the foster system’s disproportionate separation of Black, Latine, and Indigenous families.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Taylor

Michigan Supreme Court •
We argued that current research supports affording 20-year-olds the same sentencing protections that the Michigan Supreme Court previously extended to 18-year-olds because 20-year-olds share essentially the same developmental characteristics as 18-year-olds and are equally less culpable than older adults.
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.