Legal Docket

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

Date
11 - 20 of 446 resultsReset
Economic Justice

In re Torres on H.C.

California Supreme Court •
Our brief focused on the impact of pretrial detention on parents and their children. We explained how charging parents unaffordable bail can lead to the state placing their children in the foster system and can even lead to permanent termination of parental rights. We focused on the harms of foster system involvement and the disparate impacts of unaffordable money bail on California’s Black, Latine and Indigenous children and children in poverty due to the deep racial and economic disparities in both the foster care and carceral systems.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

In re K.R.C.

Wisconsin Supreme Court •
Our brief emphasized that when determining whether an individual is in custody, courts must assess every custody factor from a reasonable child’s perspective. The reasonable child standard is required by the Supreme Court in J.D.B., which recognized children’s vulnerability in interrogation settings. We argued that properly applying the reasonable child standard shows Kevin was in custody and that interrogations in schools should be presumptively custodial due to students' restricted movement and heightened susceptibility to pressure.
Youth Tried as Adults

Castaner v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court •
We argue that a lengthy term of years sentence of 42-to-75 years imposed on a 15-year-old violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. We further argued that Mr. Castaner’s 42-year minimum sentence not only exceeds other Wyoming sentences but also exceeds the maximum sentence allowed for second-degree murder in most jurisdictions across the country and exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment permitted before parole eligibility – 25 years – under Wyoming law for a life sentence for first-degree murder, making his 42-year minimum sentence for second-degree murder disproportionate and arbitrary in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Extended Foster Care

Ocean S. v. County of Los Angeles

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
This brief was filed in support of Plaintiffs to affirm the district court’s ruling that the Younger abstention should extend no further than the three exceptional circumstances set forth by the Supreme Court. The brief explains that the affirmance of the district court’s order will permit Plaintiffs, youth poised to transition out of the foster care system, to redress serious injuries caused by Defendants’ failure to provide safe and suitable foster care placements for youth.
Youth Interrogations & Access to Counsel

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
The brief emphasized that children have the right to meaningfully participate in immigration proceedings and dedicated legal counsel is necessary to facilitate that participation. Moreover, the brief argued that legal counsel is vital to protect children from the well-documented, severe physical and emotional mistreatment children suffer while in custody and to mitigate the detrimental impact of ongoing separation from their families. Finally, the brief highlighted research that shows appointing counsel saves the government money because lawyers expedite case resolution, shorten the time children spend in care, and reduce more costly case outcomes.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Hazard

Colorado Supreme Court •
Our brief presented substantial research demonstrating that older adolescents, including 19-year-olds like Mr. Hazard, share the same developmental characteristics the Supreme Court relied on in Miller to hold that mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional for youth under 18 and urged the court to o follow the lead of state supreme courts in Michigan, Massachusetts, and Washington, which have all recently found that mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional for youth under 21.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Daniel v. State

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals •
We argued that Mr. Daniel did not receive an individualized sentencing hearing to assess his youth and its attendant characteristics, as required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022). We further argued that Mr. Daniel’s youth was likely used against him due to the racist “superpredator” myth that led to the disproportionate punishment of Black youth like Mr. Daniel in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Extended Foster Care

Jonathan R. v. Morrisey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit •
Amici argued that the district court’s order has far-reaching consequences that will deprive youth of systemwide remedies for violations of their constitutional rights and that institutional reform litigation is necessary to secure constitutional protections, particularly for historically marginalized groups, and has delivered meaningful, long-lasting results.
Keeping Kids in the Community

K.W. v. City of New York

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit •
The brief argued that the fundamental right to family integrity extends to children and that in order to protect children’s right to family integrity, it is essential to protect children’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless “emergency” removals by requiring agencies to take a narrowly tailored approach in their interventions and applying a rigorous and strict standard of review when evaluating those interventions. Additionally, the brief emphasized that children suffer long-term emotional and psychological harm that negatively impact them in adulthood when they are unnecessarily separated from their parents.
Extended Foster Care

In re Lukas B.

New York Court of Appeals •
The brief was filed in the appeal of a ruling which found a father neglected his child by failing to prevent the child’s mother from using drugs. The brief emphasizes how rulings like this violate non-birthing parents’ and children’s fundamental right to family integrity and causes tremendous psychological and emotional harm to children. Finally, the brief outlines how this ruling will likely discourage non-birthing parents from being involved in the pregnancy because the ruling ultimately punishes the involvement.