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.
Our brief argued that the banned medical care both improves mental health and well-being and decreases suicide risk for transgender youth. The brief further argued that transgender health care 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.
Our brief highlighted neuroscientific research demonstrating that older adolescents share the same developmental characteristics of youth relied upon by the Supreme Court in Roper and its progeny. We argued that, based on this scientific consensus, the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and evolving standards of decency, the imposition of the death penalty on older adolescents like Ms. Pike constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Our amicus letter argued that late adolescents share the same developmental characteristics that provided the basis for the Court’s treatment of youth in Comer, and they are thus entitled to the same constitutional protections.
The brief argued that foster parent intervention in dependency matters undermines children’s long-term well-being by delaying permanency and increasing the likelihood of 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. Finally, the brief argued that allowing prospective adoptive parent intervention will lead to increased costs associated with prolonged litigation.
The brief 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. Finally, the brief argued that environmental factors, such as housing conditions and income, should never be the basis for termination of parental rights.
Our brief highlighted research showing that the majority of Pennsylvanians serving LWOP sentences for felony murder were 25 or younger at the time of their offense, and over 42% were between the ages of 18 to 21. We argued that imposing such 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. Finally, our brief highlighted the stories of individuals sentenced to LWOP as young people who successfully returned to their communities post-Miller, demonstrating the importance of abolishing punishments that foreclose hope of rehabilitation.
Our brief 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. Our brief 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.
Our brief argued that Alabama’s designation of many youth as “adult sex offenders” subject to the parenting restrictions is an example of the law’s overbreadth because youth mature out of delinquent behavior, are amenable to rehabilitation, and are extremely unlikely to sexually recidivate. 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.
Our brief highlighted the impact of these ordinances 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.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.
