Legal Docket

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

1 - 10 of 378 resultsReset
Youth Tried as Adults
Rhode Island Supreme Court •
Our brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama are relevant to and consistent with the adoption and interpretation of Mario’s Law, and that the State of Rhode Island seeks to preserve the power and influence it wields over youthful offenders through charge stacking, a practice that exacerbates racial inequities and is uniquely problematic when applied to youth.
Keeping Kids in the Community
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court •
The brief argued that federal and Pennsylvania law require school districts to provide a FAPE to students with disabilities until they turn 22. The brief further argued that balance of equities requires denial of Petitioners’ requested relief, as there is nothing inequitable in requiring Petitioners to follow the law, while disabled students and their families will suffer great harm if they are denied the FAPEs to which they are entitled.
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit •
Our brief argued that the law requires Louisiana’s juvenile justice system to provide youth with rehabilitative services and protect them from harm. We further detailed the many ways that incarcerating youth in adult facilities causes irreparable harm and has a racially discriminatory impact. Finally, our brief argued that harsh treatment of incarcerated youth is not necessary or productive.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief urged the Court to clarify that neuroscientific and developmental research mandate a categorical bar on LWOP for youth. Our brief argued that the Court has previously affirmed the importance of adolescent development research to understanding the legality of extreme sentences for youth. Our brief further detailed the many instances in which lower Michigan courts have imposed LWOP without adequate consideration of youth and its attendant circumstances, further necessitating a categorical bar on LWOP for youth.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Pennsylvania Superior Court •
We argued that Mr. King's de facto life sentence is both unconstitutionally disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and unconstitutionally cruel under the Pennsylvania Constitution. We further urged the Court to reinstate the procedural protections previously set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Batts.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
California Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the mitigating attributes of adolescence apply with compelling force to all late adolescents, regardless of offense or issued sentence and, accordingly, the statute’s distinction among late adolescents is irrational and unsupported by science.
Keeping Kids in the Community
Maryland Court of Appeals •
The brief argued that Maryland’s Juvenile Justice Reform Commission recommended a minimum age because it recognized that the juvenile justice system is a developmentally inappropriate response to alleged misbehavior by young children. The brief further argued that the approach of sister states reflects a national trend of setting a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction, and that racial and gender equity considerations reinforce the need for retroactive application of the JJRA.
Keeping Kids in the Community
Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the Superior Court and juvenile court orders contravene the letter and purpose of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act and related court rules. We further argued that meaningful and timely appellate review is necessary to curtail the grave harms caused by out-of-home placements, including disproportionate harm to youth of color and youth with disabilities.