Legal Docket

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

Date
161 - 170 of 443 resultsReset
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)

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.

Oregon v. Azar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
Amici urged the Court to affirm the trial courts’ preliminary injunctions against regulations which would undermine the Affordable Care Act. Amici argued that the predictable result of the regulations would be that health care providers would be unable to accept Title X funds, causing care sites to close. These cutbacks would fall disproportionately on individuals who face significant health disparities. There would be serious consequences for adolescents, and the health of other underserved groups—including people of color, people in rural areas, and those living with disabilities—would be negatively affected.

People v. Steve M.

California Supreme Court •
We urged the court to grant review, arguing that Steve’s youth, learning disabilities, and intoxication at the time of the interrogation made it impossible for him to have the capacity to waive his rights.

Wible v. School District of Philadelphia

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court •
Amici argued that educational institutions’ failure to address and remedy harassment leads to adverse outcomes for survivors and in particular for girls, students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, and students who embody multiple marginalized identities. Amici urged the Court to affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) recognizes claims of discrimination against educational institutions that fail to address and remedy student-on-student harassment.

State v. Geyser

Wisconsin Courts of Appeal •
Amici argued that courts must consider adolescent development when evaluating the validity of a Miranda waiver and the voluntariness of a confession and that youth cannot validly waive Miranda rights absent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Commonwealth v. Bourgeois

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that arguing that a de facto life without parole sentence cannot be constitutionally imposed on a youth without a finding of permanent incorrigibility, and that the trial court committed a legal error by failing to consider the Miller factors on the record before sentencing.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Commonwealth v. Ligon

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •

Juvenile Law Center, in collaboration with Defender Association of Philadelphia, Cozen O’Connor, Peter Goldberger, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP, filed a brief in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on behalf of Mr. Ligon and other named defendants in support of the questions of law raised in General Court Regulation #1 of 2016 to be resolved by an en banc panel prior to re-sentencing the juvenile life without parole population. Since Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia in particular has the largest juvenile lifer population in the country, the court’s decision is likely to have a significant impact on many juvenile lifer re-sentencings.

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Moretti

Washington Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that courts must consider emerging research on youth brain development during sentencing, and Washington’s “Three Strikes” law should incorporate the Eighth Amendment’s requirement for individualized sentencing because the characteristics of youth relied upon in Roper and its progeny are still developing in older adolescents and young adults.