Posts in 'Amicus Curiae'

Our brief urged the court to grant review in order to clarify that a defendant’s age must be considered in assessing a claim of self-defense. We argued that the developmental characteristics of youth directly impact their perceptions of threatening situations, and that youth should not be held to an adult reasonableness standard.

We argued that that sex offender registration is punitive when applied to youth and causes irreparable harm to young people. We further emphasized that registration more severely harms transgender youth.

Our brief argued that the court’s evaluation of a young person’s sophistication and maturity must consider current scientific research on adolescent development and the documented effects of peer pressure on youth.

Amici argued that the failure to grant Miller hearings to youth convicted of second degree murder violates both due process and equal protection, due to the resulting disproportionate sentencing between the first degree cohort and the second degree cohort.  

Our brief urged the Court to adopt an Excessive Fines Clause proportionality test that accounts for individual circumstances, including youth. We argued that a one-size-fits-all test for excessive fines will have devastating impacts on youth due to their diminished culpability and lowered ability to pay, and will disproportionately harm Black, Brown, and Indigenous youth.

Our amicus brief argued that the sentence for contempt of court ignored A Juvenile's status as a child, and that both the sentence and underlying bail order showed racial, gender, and dependency status bias.

Amici argued that the mandatory imposition of life without parole on emerging adults violates the Eighth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution. We argued that emerging adults possess the same developmental characteristics of youth that were relied upon in Roper and its progeny, and are thus less deserving of the harshest punishments. Our brief also emphasized the growing statewide, national, and international consensus that the line between childhood and adulthood should be set above 18. 

We argued that both the mandatory transfer into adult court and the imposition of a mandatory life sentence on a juvenile violate due process and the Eighth Amendment by precluding any analysis of the mitigating characteristics of youth, as required by Miller. Our brief further argued that mandatory statutory schemes create the risk of a disparate effect on youth of color.

Amici argued that Mr. Brooks’s 90-year minimum de facto life sentence is disproportionate and unconstitutional under the both the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Washington Constitution and must be considered in the context of severe race disproportionality among those serving lengthy sentences and life sentences.

We argued that the interpretation of California Penal Code Section 26 in J.E.’s case was arbitrary and racially biased. We further argued that J.E. was improperly perceived as older and more culpable for her conduct because she is Black. We also emphasized that, at thirteen years old, J.E. was not developmentally capable of regulating her emotions in stressful situations, and that she behaved as a reasonable Black child would who had no personal experience with law enforcement.