Legal Docket

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

21 - 30 of 361 resultsReset
Keeping Kids in the Community

William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court •
Our brief argued that students in Pennsylvania’s low-wealth districts require targeted programs and services to receive an adequate constitutional education. The brief further argued that inequities in education disproportionately impact children of color across Pennsylvania, that other state courts have ruled that “at-risk” students require targeted programs and services, and that increasing school funding improves academic and life outcomes for these students. 
Youth Tried as Adults

Commonwealth v. Green

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the public interest is served by transferring D.G. to juvenile court and that abundant research supports that young people are capable of positive change and rehabilitation. Our brief further argued that subjecting a child to the criminal system can have devastating consequences and that prosecuting a child in criminal court does not reduce recidivism or deter future crime.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Moore

Illinois Supreme Court •
The brief argued that recent science on emerging adult brain development has led to corresponding progress in the law, including the extension of Miller-type protections and second look review to older adolescents. The brief further argued that the Court should clarify what is required to put forth a successive postconviction claim.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Arias

Arizona Court of Appeals •
The brief argued that Mr. Arias’s sentence is unconstitutional under Miller, as at the time of his sentencing Arizona law did not allow the court to impose a parole-eligible sentence. The brief further argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jones does not affect the unconstitutionality of Mr. Arias’s sentence under Miller or reflect a change in controlling law. 
Youth Tried as Adults

In re K.D.D.

Missouri Court of Appeals •
We argued that certification hearings require heightened due process procedures to protect youth from the harms of the adult system and that virtual hearings violate the constitutional protections that must accompany these proceedings. We further argued that failure to provide robust constitutional protections results in racially disproportionate certification, which is exacerbated by virtual hearings.
Keeping Kids in the Community

G.T. v. Board of Education of Kanawha

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit •
The brief argued that adopting the defendant’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), governing class certification, “would endanger class actions as a critical tool for securing civil rights generally and for students with disabilities in particular.” The brief further emphasized that the express purpose of Rule 23(b)(2) is to strengthen class actions as a weapon against discrimination, that such class actions are crucial to the pursuit of educational rights, and that the rule has been used to remedy a wide variety of civil rights violations. 
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Taylor

Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that neuroscientific and developmental research mandates a categorical bar on life without parole sentences for youth, and that, at a minimum, Michigan should establish procedural protections to ensure youth rarely receive life without parole sentences. 
Keeping Kids in the Community

Ashley W. v. Holcomb

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit •
The brief argued that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana correctly applied Younger v. Harris in permitting this litigation to proceed. The brief further argued that the overbroad application of Younger supported by the defendants would obstruct federal courts’ historical function as protectors of constitutional and civil rights and would disproportionately affect Black and Brown children, LGBTQ+ youth, and children with disabilities.
Sex Offender Registration of Children (SORNA)

State v. D.S.

Washington Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that mandatory youth sex offender registration is punitive. Our brief emphasized that sexual recidivism rates for youth are low, that youth sex offender registration and notification laws fail to improve or enhance public safety in any way, and that such laws are associated with severe harm to youth on the registry. We further argued that youth registration requirements disproportionately impact Black youth and individuals experiencing homelessness.