United States of America v. J.D.T.

In 2011, 10-year-old J.D.T. was adjudicated delinquent of five counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12. He was placed on five-years’ probation and remanded to the custody of his parents. J.D.T. appealed this adjudication.

Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief supporting J.D.T.’s appeal. We argued that 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), the statute prohibiting sexual acts with children under the age of 12, was unconstitutional when the accused is also under 12. We argued that the statute’s enforcement against J.D.T. was arbitrary and discriminatory because he was a member of the class the statute was enacted to protect. Although all of the children involved were under the age of 12 and thus subject to prosecution, only J.D.T. was prosecuted. Additionally, we argued that the law treated J.D.T. like an adult or juvenile over 12, contrary to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence and scientific research showing the differences between children and adults.

Our brief also argued that 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) fails to provide sufficient notice of the conduct that is prohibited since its “knowing” requirement imposes a liability standard inappropriate for a child who can neither appreciate the risks of the activity nor understand the sexual nature of the act.

Finally, our brief argued that applying 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) to a juvenile under age 12 is particularly harsh due to the sex offender registration requirements that accompany a delinquency finding under it. J.D.T. will face registration requirements in many states and will face the lifelong consequences of being perceived as a dangerous sex offender, even though juveniles have particularly low recidivism rates. These consequences include barriers to housing, employment, schooling, and normal development.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, among other findings, that 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate principles of notice within due process. However, the Court remanded the case to the district court for consideration of J.D.T.’s request to suspend his delinquency determination, as “the district court did not clearly articulate whether the [Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act’s] rehabilitative purposes would best be advanced by suspension of the delinquency finding” and did not make clear “that the district court knew it could consider suspension.”