Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Mares, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
Argued that Colorado's mandatory statutory sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama.
Argued that, to the extent that juvenie life without parole (JLWOP) sentences are ever constitutional, the sentencing judge must consider the factors laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama before sentencing a child to die in prison.
Argued that Nebraska’s mandatory statutory sentencing scheme is now unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.
Argued that California's sentencing statute, in which the presumptive sentence for any juvenile age 16 or older convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama.
Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Soto, Tulloch, Dingman, and Lopez, who were sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
Supreme Court held the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued the developmental differences between adolescents and adults in critical areas, including impulse control and understanding consequences.
Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences in Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively to juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole before the ban.
Motions were filed with the juvenile court seeking nunc pro tunc relief on behalf of youth who in York County had been adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses prior to December 2012 when the SORNA law went into effect. The motions for nunc pro tunc relief ask the court to reconsider their classification as juvenile sex offenders and remove their information from the sex offender registry.
These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.