Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

We argued that Section 2313 of the Adoption Act of Pennsylvania unambiguously requires the appointment of client-directed counsel, not a best interests guardian ad litem, to represent a child's legal interests in a contested involuntary termination of parental rights hearing.

At ages 16 and 17, Treson Roberts and Zyion Houston-Sconiers stole candy and cell phones from teenage trick-or-treaters on Halloween. As a result of Washington’s automatic decline statute, they were each transferred to adult court and subjected to adult mandatory minimum sentences without a hearing or individualized determination of the appropriateness of the transfer. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Houston-Sconiers were sentenced to 26 plus years and 31 years respectively. We argued that this statutory scheme violates the procedural due process protections of the U.S. Constitution.

We challenged the Ninth Circuit's decision which constrained the ability of non-profit organizations to bring pre-enforcement challenges to new regulations or administrative rules under the ripeness doctrine.

We argued that the adult prosecution of a person who committed a crime as a juvenile but was apprehended after his 21st birthday is irreconcilable with Ohio’s commitment to protecting young children in the justice system.

We opposed the State’s argument that the exclusionary rule does not apply to an illegal search conducted by school officials.

We argued that Texas’s waiver of jurisdiction standard violates (1) a juvenile’s right to appellate review, (2) due process by denying certain juvenile offenders the right to an individualized determination of amenability to treatment in juvenile court, and (3) equal protection by arbitrarily depriving certain juvenile offenders of the benefits and protections of the juvenile court.

Amici argued that a life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of first degree murder under a theory of accessorial liability is unconstitutional under Graham because such a conviction is the equivalent of a nonhomicide crime since it does not require that the defendant kill or intend to kill.

Juvenile Law Center, in collaboration with Teamchild, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Washington in support of Joel Ramos who received an aggregate 85-year sentence for multiple offenses.

We argued that an aggregate 90-year sentence for offenses committed by a juvenile violates Miller because it is the functional equivalent of life without parole and was imposed without consideration of the Miller factors.

We argued that a 91½-year sentence, requiring at least 45 years served prior to becoming parole eligible, for nonhomicide offenses committed by a juvenile is unconstitutional under Graham because it fails to provide a “meaningful opportunity” for release.