Legal Docket

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

61 - 70 of 384 resultsReset
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

In re Williams

Washington Supreme Court •
We argued that Washington’s Persistent Offender statute violates both the Federal and Washington Constitutions by using a juvenile offense as the basis for imposing mandatory life without parole.
Youth Tried as Adults

State v. Fuell

Ohio Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that probable cause hearings that result in transfer to adult court require due process protections to protect youth from the harms of the adult system and prevent racially disproportionate transfer. Our brief also argued that any sentence with a life tail should be treated consistently with the process set forth in State v. Patrick, which mandates consideration of youth and its attendant characteristics before imposing a life sentence. We further argued that life sentences are imposed disproportionately on youth of color and must therefore be subject to additional safeguards. 
Youth Tried as Adults

State v. Reasoner

Oregon Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that mandatory prosecution in adult court exposes youth to severe consequences. We further argued that ORS 419C.370 disproportionately results in criminal prosecution of Black youth, as Black youth are more likely to be subject to traffic stops and, when stopped, are more likely to be searched and subject to prosecution for motor vehicle-involved charges.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

Bunch v. Ohio

Ohio Supreme Court •

Argued that Petitioner Bunch's sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole without a meaningful and realistic opportunity to re-enter society prior to the expiration of their sentences for non-homicide offenses.

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. Graham

Ohio District Courts of Appeal •
Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief in an Ohio District Court of Appeals in support of Mr. Graham arguing that the trial court failed to take into consideration the diminished culpability of older adolescents and emphasizing that a growing number of state and federal laws treat older adolescents like youth under 18. Our brief further argued that Mr. Graham’s harsh sentence exacerbates longstanding racial disparities in the application of criminal laws in Ohio and throughout the nation. 
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

People v. Matias

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division •
Our brief provided the Court with context on the history of youth sentencing and argued that, in the 1980s and 1990s, racist characterizations of youth in the media, and unsupported scholarly predictions about youth, race and crime led to a moral panic about violent youth criminals. The legislative changes brought about by these false narratives had lasting effects for youth, particularly Black and Brown youth.
Records

State v. I.A.S.

Washington Supreme Court •
The brief argued that collecting DNA after entry of a deferred disposition saddles children with lifetime consequences for youthful actions and undermines the purported goals of the juvenile legal system. The brief further argued that the collection of DNA for deferred dispositions, as well as the use of DNA databases generally, disproportionately harms Black, Indigenous and other Washingtonians of color.
Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP)

State v. McDougald

North Carolina Court of Appeals •
Our brief argued that Mr. McDougald’s sentence flouts constitutional limitations on juvenile sentencing, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibiting the imposition of mandatory LWOP based on juvenile conduct. We further argued that Mr. McDougald’s sentence contravenes North Carolina’s current legislative understanding of youth and extends the state’s racially disparate treatment of Black youth.
Keeping Kids in the Community

Stephen C. v. Bureau of Indian Education

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
The brief argued that all Havasupai children ever named as plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory education, a forward-looking remedy designed to provide services and resources to students previously deprived of adequate education.
Youth Tried as Adults

State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff

Missouri Supreme Court •
Our brief argued that youth of color, particularly Black youth, are disproportionately prosecuted in the adult system, and that youth experience severe harm when charged as adults. We further argued that the financial concerns surrounding Section 211.031.1(3) are overstated and should not be a barrier to implementation.