Miscellaneous: Racial Justice Amicus and Appellate Strategies

The cases below use disparities data to inform statutory and policy arguments. While they do not relate to a specific Constitutional claim, they may be instructive in a variety of legal contexts. 

Cases

In re M.P.

The brief argued that the Maryland Juvenile Justice Reform Act’s provision setting age 13 as the minimum age for juvenile justice system involvement must be applied retroactively. Since the Act itself recognized a goal of race equity, the brief highlighted that the racial and ethnic disparities in adjudications supported this interpretation of the statute.  

Commonwealth v. Taylor

The brief argued that a certification to adult court that pushes a child into detention is not harmless, and that release is the only appropriate remedy. The brief highlighted that the error caused particular harm to youth of color, and particularly Black youth, given how legislation pushing youth into the adult system was based on the racist myth of the superpredator, and in light of the persistent bias and discrimination that plays into transfer decisions. 

In re N.E.M.

The brief argued that ordering a young person into out of home placement contravenes the letter and purpose of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Court Act. We further argued that meaningful and timely appellate review of such decisions is needed to curtail the disproportionate harm of out-of-home placement to youth of color and youth with disabilities.  

City of Philadelphia v. Department of Human Services

The brief highlighted that addressing overcrowding in Philadelphia’s detention center requires releasing more youth into the community. The brief emphasized the harms of out-of-home placements, and specifically the disproportionate harm that such placements have on youth of color and youth with disabilities. The brief also highlighted the available and effective alternatives to detention. 

State v. Zarlengo

The brief argued that because adolescents are uniquely vulnerable when plea bargaining, their decision to accept a guilty plea when in adult criminal court should not also deprive them of the right to appeal an underlying probable cause determination. We highlighted that preventing a youth who pleads guilty from appealing such decisions would disproportionately impact Black youth, who are more likely to be transferred to the adult criminal system. 

Smith v. Edwards

Our brief argued that the law requires Louisiana’s juvenile justice system to provide youth with rehabilitative services and protect them from harm. We further detailed the many ways that incarcerating youth in adult facilities causes irreparable harm and has a racially discriminatory impact.

Neves v. State

Our brief argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama are relevant to and consistent with the adoption and interpretation of Mario’s Law, and that the State of Rhode Island seeks to preserve the power and influence it wields over youthful offenders through charge stacking, a practice that exacerbates racial inequities and is uniquely problematic when applied to youth.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

Our brief highlighted the impact of local ordinances targeting individuals experiencing homelessness on the millions of youth who are forced out of housing each year, including those who are disproportionately impacted by homelessness, such as youth with foster care experience, LGBTQIA+ youth, youth of color, and youth who have been incarcerated.

Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, et al.

Our brief argued that Alabama’s designation of many youth as “adult sex offenders” disproportionately impacts Black youth because of stark racial disparities in transfer decisions and outcomes. Furthermore, Alabama law prohibits many individuals registered as sex offenders, including those who were youth at the time of their offense from later residing with their own children based solely on the youthful offense. Our brief further argued that this restriction intrudes on the constitutionally protected right to family integrity, and that prohibiting children from living with a parent can cause immense psychological harm and trauma. We also highlighted the research demonstrating that youth mature out of delinquent behavior, are amenable to rehabilitation, and are extremely unlikely to sexually recidivate.

In re Bates

Our briefs argued that termination of parental rights inflicts significant emotional and psychological harm on children, and that kinship and guardianship placements preserve familial connections and provide a less restrictive alternative to termination. We further argued that termination of parental rights must pass strict scrutiny because the deprivation of the fundamental right to family integrity is disproportionately imposed on Black, Latinx, and Indigenous children and termination without considering alternatives perpetuates the racist origins of the child welfare system.

Commonwealth v. Lee

We argued that imposing LWOP sentences on young adults disregards research confirming that they share many developmental traits with young people under 18. Our brief further argued that LWOP sentences for felony murder are unconstitutionally cruel under the Pennsylvania Constitution and disproportionately harm Black and Latinx young adults.

In re E.D.A.

The brief argued that environmental factors, such as housing conditions and income, should never be the basis for termination of parental rights and highlighted the importance of maintaining lifelong family relationships for a child’s development and wellbeing, as well as the significant harm that can result from the permanent severance of family attachments. The brief further argued that termination of parental rights is disproportionately inflicted on Black children, a disproportionality that stems from the United States’ long legacy of systematically devaluing and dismantling Black families.

People v. Czarnecki

Challenging mandatory LWOP as applied to 19-year-olds. 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.

State v. Moore

Moore was sentenced to LWOP and a consecutive 20 year setence for crimines committed at age 19, making him parole eligible only after serving 40 years. 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.

Gotay v. Green

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.

In re R.B.

We argued that school truancy 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.

United States v. Skrmetti

We joined a brief that argued that Tennessee's categorical ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth harms youth by prohibiting medical care that both improves mental health and well-being and decreases suicide risk for transgender youth. The brief further argued that such bans disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, including transgender youth of color, those living in poverty or in rural areas, foster youth and youth involved in the juvenile legal system, and those experiencing housing instability.

In re S.W.

This case concerns the ability of foster parents to intervene in dependency cases. We joined a brief that argued that foster parent intervention in dependency matters undermines children’s long-term well-being by delaying permanency and increasing the likelihood of termination of parental rights (TPR). The brief further highlighted the United States’ legacy of systematically devaluing and dismantling Black families and the disproportionate rates of family separation and TPR experienced by Black children to show that allowing prospective adoptive parent standing will perpetuate these deeply entrenched racial and class biases.

People v. Joseph

We joined a 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.