Legal Docket

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

Date
21 - 30 of 449 resultsReset
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.
Extended Foster Care

M.M. v. King

Michigan Court of Appeals •
Our brief highlighted the unique and devastating harms that youth in the foster system suffer when they are banned from visiting their incarcerated parents in person, including the perspectives of Juvenile Law Center’s youth advocates with experience navigating these harms. Our brief further argued that in-person visits with incarcerated parents are critical to the wellbeing of children in the foster system, especially because visitation is crucial to the goal of family reunification. Finally, we discussed the ways in which St. Clair County Jail’s ban on in-person family visits entrenches racial and economic disparities. Our brief details the foster system’s disproportionate separation of Black, Latine, and Indigenous families.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Taylor

Michigan Supreme Court •
We argued that current research supports affording 20-year-olds the same sentencing protections that the Michigan Supreme Court previously extended to 18-year-olds because 20-year-olds share essentially the same developmental characteristics as 18-year-olds and are equally less culpable than older adults.
Keeping Kids in the Community

In re R.B.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief explained that attendance records are often incorrect and unreliable and should not, alone, support a finding of dependency. We emphasized that school records should be subject to the same indicia of reliability and rigorous interrogation as other business records – as required by the rules of evidence. The brief also argued that truancy does not justify the trauma and harm associated with subjecting a family to ongoing oversight or separating children from their families. Furthermore, the brief highlighted that the racial disparities in the Child Welfare system are exacerbated by dependency adjudications based on truancy alone and described the United States’ long legacy of systematically devaluing and dismantling Black families and discussed the ways in which Black children are disproportionately subject to punishment for truancy and placement in dependent care.
Youth Tried as Adults

People v. Joseph

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division •
The brief focused on (I) stark racial disparities in the administration of New York’s felony murder law, (II) the manifest injustice that occurred in Mr. Joseph’s case given the unavailability of a justification defense for the felony murder charge; (III) the felony murder doctrine’s dissonance with research on youth brain development; and (IV) the unconstitutional sentence imposed on Mr. Joseph as a result of these factors.
Keeping Kids in the Community

Gotay v. Green

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court •
We argued that (1) children in foster care have a substantive due process right to a safe living environment based on their clearly established special relationship with the Commonwealth, and (2) the proper legal standard for analyzing substantive due process claims by youth in foster care is whether the state actors responsible for their care substantially departed from accepted professional judgment, pursuant to Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). We also pointed out the importance of applying protective legal standards in such cases, given the grave risks of harm to youth in care and that Black and Hispanic/Latine youth are disproportionately represented in the Massachusetts system.
Youth Tried as Adults

State v. Moore

New Jersey Superior Court •
Our brief explained that the superpredator theory arose from a long history of dehumanizing Black people and the deeply entrenched stereotype that Black people are predisposed to violent criminality. We emphasized that although the superpredator myth was false, it had a lasting impact on legislation across the country. We further emphasized that life without parole sentences are disproportionately imposed on Black youth and emerging adults.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Czarnecki

Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that current research supports affording 19-year-olds the same sentencing protections under Miller that the Michigan Supreme Court previously extended to 18-year-olds in People v. Parks, 987 NW2d 161 (2022). We highlighted that 19-year-olds share essentially the same developmental characteristics as 18-year-olds, making them equally less culpable than older adults; that they are likely to desist from crime as they reach their late 20’s and early 30’s; and that mandatory life without parole and other extreme sentences disproportionately harm Black adolescents.