We urged the court to grant review to ensure that children who experience discrimination in school can benefit from the protections of the PHRA. We argued that minority tolling is a vital protection for Pennsylvania’s children, as it is fundamentally unfair to hold children like N.B. to the same statute of limitations as adults.
Our brief argued that the court impermissibly considered B.O.J.'s gender and dependency status, in direct contradiction to Washington State statute, resulting in an inappropriate lengthy term of incarceration for very minor offenses. Our brief highlighted research demonstrating that girls, particularly girls of color and those involved in both the delinquency and dependency systems, are often punished more severely by courts, under the justification of providing treatment and protection, than their male peers for the same or more severe offenses.
Our brief argued that the court violated A.W.’s constitutional rights by failing to provide notice at the time of his plea that completing sex offender treatment was a necessary condition to avoid imposition of an adult sentence and that the court violated his rights and Ohio law by imposing the adult sentence for a condition that, due to time constraints, was impossible for A.W. to meet.
Our brief argued that the federal and Michigan constitutions prohibit life sentences for youth absent a parole process that provides a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release, and that Michigan’s parole process fails to provide such an opportunity for individuals sentenced to parolable life as youth.
Our brief argued that the Eighth Amendment's protections apply with equal force to children who are serving lengthy term-of-years sentences and were convicted of multiple offenses.
Our brief argued that a juvenile disposition modification hearing is a “critical stage” in delinquency proceedings entitling children to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and that counsel who argues that a child should be placed in the harshest and most punitive setting available cannot be said to be providing effective assistance.
Our brief urged the court to grant certiorari to address the lower court’s failure to adequately consider Mr. Morrow’s childhood sexual abuse as powerful mitigating evidence counseling against the imposition of the death penalty.
We argued that a lengthy sentence imposed on a youth, which precludes a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, violates the Eighth Amendment. We further argued that Illinois sentencing structure, which imposes an automatic 25 years-to-life in firearm enhancements on top of mandatory minimums on youth tried as adults, fails to meaningfully consider youth as required by Miller and Montgomery.
Amici argued that mandatory sentencing that imposes harsh adult consequences on juvenile offenders without any individualized consideration of age or other mitigating circumstances contravenes the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Our brief argued that discriminating against prospective foster parents on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity harms children and diminishes their ability to achieve permanency.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.