Legal Docket

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

81 - 90 of 385 resultsReset
Youth Interrogations

Commonwealth v. Evelyn

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
We argued that courts must consider the unique intersectionality of youth and race when applying the Fourth Amendment reasonable person analysis for seizures.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Keefe

Montana Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of Steven Keefe, who was sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when he was under the age of 18.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Patrick

Ohio Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the imposition of any life imprisonment sentence upon a juvenile offender, including a life tail, imposed without considering youth and its attendant characteristics, is unconstitutional under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.
Access to Counsel

Davison v. State

Washington Supreme Court •
Amici argued that the state should be held liable when youth are deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel, even when the state has delegated the responsibility of providing  counsel to the county because the right to counsel is fundamental and essential to a fair trial.
Juvenile Sex Offender Registry (SORNA)

Pennington v. Taylor

United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama •
Attorneys from Juvenile Law Center and SPLC filed a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act, which imposes a lifetime obligation to register as a sex offender for children tried and convicted as adults for sex offenses.
Youth Interrogations

In re M.H.

Ohio Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued that M.H.’s statements to a government social worker may have been involuntary and violated due process even if the government social worker was not required to give Miranda warnings because youth are more susceptible to coercion, conditioned to comply with adults’ requests, cognitively disadvantaged when navigating the juvenile justice system, and misunderstand their rights even when actively informed of their rights.
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions

Flores v. Barr

United States District Court, Central District of California •
Amici argued that regulations released in August 2019 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are inconsistent with the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), violated state licensing requirements required by the FSA, and put children at risk of serious harm or even death.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Hairston v. State

Idaho Supreme Court •
Juvenile Law Center argued that the reasoning relied on by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons (prohibiting capital punishment for youth who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed) applies with equal force to young adults, such as James Hairston, and that legislative changes reflect an emerging national consensus that individuals under age 21 are less culpable for their criminal conduct than fully-developed adults.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Mathena v. Malvo

U.S. Supreme Court •
Amici argued that imposing a life without parole sentence without considering the characteristics of youth is unconstitutional—whether imposed under a mandatory or discretionary sentencing scheme.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Lusby

Illinois Supreme Court •
In 2002, Lusby was sentenced to an aggregate of 130 years in prison, with parole eligibility after serving 65 years for a crime committed at age 16. Amici argued that Lusby’s sentence is a de facto life sentence and is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders.