Legal Docket

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

11 - 20 of 386 resultsReset
Solitary Confinement & Harsh Conditions

Smith v. Edwards

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit •
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. Finally, our brief argued that harsh treatment of incarcerated youth is not necessary or productive.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Paredes

Michigan Supreme Court •
Our brief urged the Court to clarify that neuroscientific and developmental research mandate a categorical bar on LWOP for youth. Our brief argued that the Court has previously affirmed the importance of adolescent development research to understanding the legality of extreme sentences for youth. Our brief further detailed the many instances in which lower Michigan courts have imposed LWOP without adequate consideration of youth and its attendant circumstances, further necessitating a categorical bar on LWOP for youth.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Commonwealth v. King

Pennsylvania Superior Court •
We argued that Mr. King's de facto life sentence is both unconstitutionally disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and unconstitutionally cruel under the Pennsylvania Constitution. We further urged the Court to reinstate the procedural protections previously set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Batts.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Hardin

California Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the mitigating attributes of adolescence apply with compelling force to all late adolescents, regardless of offense or issued sentence and, accordingly, the statute’s distinction among late adolescents is irrational and unsupported by science.
Keeping Kids in the Community

In re M.P.

Maryland Court of Appeals •
The brief argued that Maryland’s Juvenile Justice Reform Commission recommended a minimum age because it recognized that the juvenile justice system is a developmentally inappropriate response to alleged misbehavior by young children. The brief further argued that the approach of sister states reflects a national trend of setting a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction, and that racial and gender equity considerations reinforce the need for retroactive application of the JJRA.
Keeping Kids in the Community

In re N.E.M.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that the Superior Court and juvenile court orders contravene the letter and purpose of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act and related court rules. We further argued that meaningful and timely appellate review is necessary to curtail the grave harms caused by out-of-home placements, including disproportionate harm to youth of color and youth with disabilities.
Keeping Kids in the Community

City of Philadelphia v. Department of Human Services

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court •
Our brief argued that the current overcrowding at PJJSC will continue unless measures are taken to substantially limit the use of custody and confinement for Philadelphia’s youth. Our brief emphasized the many ways that out-of-home placements cause grave harm to children. We further argued that Pennsylvania’s overuse of confinement disproportionately harms youth of color and youth with disabilities, and that alternatives to detention are available and effective.