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 387 resultsReset
Keeping Kids in the Community
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court •
Our brief argued that the current overcrowding at PJJSC will continue unless measures are taken to substantially limit the use of custody and confinement for Philadelphia’s youth. Our brief emphasized the many ways that out-of-home placements cause grave harm to children. We further argued that Pennsylvania’s overuse of confinement disproportionately harms youth of color and youth with disabilities, and that alternatives to detention are available and effective.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit •
Our brief argued that the increased presence of law enforcement in schools leads to greater juvenile and criminal system involvement for youth and disproportionately affects Black youth. We further argued that O.W. was entitled to Fifth Amendment protections during questioning.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel
Wisconsin Courts of Appeal •
Our brief argued that Damian’s age and trauma history made his interrogations unconstitutional. Our brief further emphasized the ways that adolescent brain development impacts youths’ abilities to appreciate and enforce their rights during interrogations, and how trauma compounds adolescent vulnerabilities during interrogations. 
Economic Justice
Our declaration detailed the financial and emotional harms to children and families of collecting costs of support and detention fees. We further emphasized that collecting these fees amplifies existing racial and income inequity in the juvenile legal system and disproportionately harms youth of color and very low-income youth. 
Keeping Kids in the Community
Texas Court of Appeals •
The brief argued that DFPS investigations, even those that do not lead to family separation or court involvement, cause harm to Texas families. The brief argued that increased surveillance of families by child welfare systems does not lead to better outcomes for children and emphasized the many harms of family separation and child welfare system involvement to children. The brief further emphasized that the new directive will disproportionately harm transgender youth as well as communities that already face high rates of investigation and involvement, including families experiencing poverty, families of color, and parents with disabilities. 
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Indiana Supreme Court •
Our brief emphasized the developmental differences between youth and adults, as confirmed by cognitive neuroscientific research, and argued that these differences must inform the sentencing of youth. Additionally, our brief argued that Nickalas’s 100-year aggregate sentence is the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence and is unconstitutional.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama •
Our lawsuit alleges that the policies, procedures, and practices of the Alabama Parole Board do not afford those serving life with parole sentences for youthful offenses a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation as required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Sex Offender Registration of Children (SORNA)
Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that sex offender registration is unconstitutional for youth under the United States and Michigan Constitutions. Our brief emphasized that sex offender registration has devastating consequences for youth and fails to advance the penological goal of rehabilitation. We further argued that youth registration does not protect, but rather undermines, public safety. 
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
Our brief argued that article 26 of the Massachusetts Constitution goes beyond the federal Eighth Amendment in guaranteeing proportionate punishments, that LWOP sentences for late adolescents are unconstitutional, and that the Court should extend the ruling in Diatchenko v. Dist. Att’y, 466 Mass. 655 (2013), accordingly.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)
Arizona Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that Mr. Bassett's sentence is an illegal mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentence for which he is entitled to resentencing. Our brief emphasized that Arizona is one of few states that have failed to implement the mandates of Miller and Montgomery, and that JLWOP sentences fall disproportionately on Black and Brown Arizonians, further rendering them constitutionally suspect. We further argued that even if the court finds that Bassett’s sentence was not mandatory, Miller’s principles must apply to discretionary JLWOP sentences.