U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit •
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. The brief emphasized that youth face countless barriers to obtaining shelter and permanent housing. Our brief further argued that criminalization is a harmful and ineffective response to homelessness, especially for youth, and detailed the ways that imposing penalties can lead to criminal legal system involvement that harms youth and creates obstacles to education, employment, and economic stability.
Our brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama are relevant to and consistent with the adoption and interpretation of Mario’s Law, and that the State of Rhode Island seeks to preserve the power and influence it wields over youthful offenders through charge stacking, a practice that exacerbates racial inequities and is uniquely problematic when applied to youth.
The brief argued that federal and Pennsylvania law require school districts to provide a FAPE to students with disabilities until they turn 22. The brief further argued that balance of equities requires denial of Petitioners’ requested relief, as there is nothing inequitable in requiring Petitioners to follow the law, while disabled students and their families will suffer great harm if they are denied the FAPEs to which they are entitled.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.
