Legal Docket

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

Date
181 - 190 of 455 resultsReset

In re J.L.

Pennsylvania Superior Court •
Our brief argued that J.L.’s removal violated Pennsylvania statute which requires that removal of a child only be used as a last resort and when clearly necessary to protect the child or the community. Our brief further outlined the ineffectiveness and long-lasting harms of residential placements on children. Finally, we highlighted research demonstrating that community-based services are effective in addressing truancy while preventing the harms of removal and placement.
Youth Tried as Adults

In re S.T.

Texas Supreme Court •
Our brief urged the court to grant review and argued that “sophistication and maturity” is a term of art that requires interpretation according to the vast adolescent development science and research.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Helm

Arizona Supreme Court •
Our brief challenged the constitutionality of Mr. Helm’s lengthy sentence, arguing that the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama requires sentencing courts provide system involved youth with a second chance to participate and engage with family and community, and individualized sentencing that takes account of the youth’s distinctive and hallmark developmental attributes.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Commonwealth v. LaPlante

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
Our letter argued that Mr. LaPlante’s sentence is the functional equivalent of a de facto life sentence and therefore unconstitutional.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Cox v. Commonwealth

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief focused specifically on the young adult population—18 to 25 year olds—who make up over one third of Pennsylvania’s current death row population and whose developmental traits of immature decision-making, impetuosity, susceptibility to negative peer influences, and greater capacity for rehabilitation further underscore the overall arbitrary and disproportionate nature of Pennsylvania’s death penalty.
Sex Offender Registration of Children (SORNA)

In re A.W.

Ohio Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the court violated A.W.’s constitutional rights by failing to provide notice at the time of his plea that completing sex offender treatment was a necessary condition to avoid imposition of an adult sentence and that the court violated his rights and Ohio law by imposing the adult sentence for a condition that, due to time constraints, was impossible for A.W. to meet.