Legal Docket

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

131 - 140 of 378 resultsReset
Keeping Kids in the Community
Washington Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the court impermissibly considered B.O.J.'s gender and dependency status, in direct contradiction to Washington State statute, resulting in an inappropriate lengthy term of incarceration for very minor offenses. Our brief highlighted research demonstrating that girls, particularly girls of color and those involved in both the delinquency and dependency systems, are often punished more severely by courts, under the justification of providing treatment and protection, than their male peers for the same or more severe offenses.
Keeping Kids in the Community
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
Amici urged the Court to affirm the trial court ruling and uphold First Amendment protections for siblings, including cohabitating siblings in foster care.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that Mr. Stahley’s sentence of life without parole is unconstitutional, because it was imposed without the protections of Batts II and because the court failed to consider evidence of his rehabilitation and rehabilitative potential, as well as the hallmark characteristics of youth as required by Miller.
Youth Tried as Adults
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals •
We argued that the entirety of section 12-15-204, which required young people in Alabama charged with certain crimes to be prosecuted in adult court, was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.
Decriminalization
Washington Supreme Court •

F.T. was sentenced to nearly 7 times the Juvenile Justice Act sentencing guidelines’ recommendation for shoplifting only $97 worth of candy and clothing. With no

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
Our brief argued that the 1996 Amendment which provided for a maximum of a 5-year setback after parole application denial does not apply retroactively to juveniles or adults. Arguing that the amendment risked increasing terms of incarceration for those it is applied to retroactively, the brief suggests that it violates the state and federal constitutional ex post facto provisions.
Youth Tried as Adults
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit •
Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued that a 65-year sentence does not provide a meaningful opportunity for release based upon demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity as required by United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. We further argued that young offenders’ distinct capacity for rehabilitation forecloses de facto life sentences and that age and the possibility of fulfillment outside prison walls, not life expectancy, determine whether a sentence provides a meaningful opportunity for release.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the federal and Michigan constitutions prohibit life sentences for youth absent a parole process that provides a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release, and that Michigan’s parole process fails to provide such an opportunity for individuals sentenced to parolable life as youth.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Oregon Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the Eighth Amendment's protections apply with equal force to children who are serving lengthy term-of-years sentences and were convicted of multiple offenses.