Summary of Argument

This case is one of national importance. Juvenile Law Center – a leading national organization for advocacy on behalf of youth in the juvenile and criminal justice systems – is joined as amicus curiae by a broad array of organizations and individuals that provide public policy analysis and support, legal scholarship, and advocacy in courts on important national issues of juvenile justice, all urging this Court to grant the petition for review.

The Court of Appeals decision, if left to stand unexamined on review, will have serious repercussions not just in Oregon but potentially beyond. Conversely, the petition for review, if granted, presents this Court with the opportunity to participate meaningfully in both the state and national development of the law and to address the fundamental differences between children and adults who commit crimes in the critical context of waiver of children into the adult criminal justice system. See Kent v. United States, 383 US 541, 546 (1966) (finding that transfer is a critically important action determining vital statutory rights of the juvenile).

The Oregon legislature sought to erect a high statutory bar to considering a child aged 12-14 (in grade school or middle school, here age 13) mature enough for trial in adult court. The Court of Appeals decision effectively eliminates that threshold by setting the statutory bar for “sufficient sophistication and maturity” so low that virtually all cases will cross it, even though the legislative history discloses that the legislature had exactly the opposite intent. In so doing, the

Court of Appeals used a plain-meaning construct and improperly ignored the body of developmental science that should have been applied in context to interpret the statutory ‘term of art’ at issue here. The court also inappropriately used the test for adult criminal insanity as statutory context to interpret the test for juvenile waiver. Finally, the court took no account of the profound constitutional concerns raised by its interpretation. Indeed, the ‘avoidance canon’ of statutory interpretation should have led the court to incorporate the developmental science into the statutory definition, rather than ignore it.

Summary of Argument

This case holds national significance, impacting not only Oregon but potentially extending beyond its borders. The Juvenile Law Center, a prominent national advocate for youth within the juvenile and criminal justice systems, is joined by various organizations and individuals - including those involved in public policy analysis, legal scholarship, and advocacy for national juvenile justice issues - in urging the Court to grant the petition for review.

The Court of Appeals' decision, if left unchecked, may have serious consequences. Conversely, granting the petition for review offers the Court a chance to engage in the state and national development of legal precedent, addressing the critical distinction between adult and juvenile offenders in the context of waiver into the adult criminal justice system. Kent v. United States, 383 US 541, 546 (1966), emphasizes the crucial nature of this transfer process, as it determines significant statutory rights for juveniles.

The Oregon legislature established a high statutory threshold for considering children aged 12-14 (enrolled in grade school or middle school, here specifically age 13) mature enough for adult court trial. The Court of Appeals decision effectively dismantles this threshold, lowering the bar for "sufficient sophistication and maturity" to a point where nearly all cases would qualify. This contradicts the legislative intent, as the history reveals a desire for a more stringent standard.

The Court of Appeals relied on a plain-meaning interpretation, inappropriately neglecting the body of developmental science that should have been applied to interpret the statutory term of art in question. Furthermore, the court incorrectly used the test for adult criminal insanity as a framework for interpreting the juvenile waiver test. Notably, the court failed to address the serious constitutional concerns raised by its interpretation. The "avoidance canon" of statutory interpretation should have guided the court to integrate developmental science into the statutory definition, rather than dismissing it entirely.

Summary of Argument

This case has significant national implications. The Juvenile Law Center, a prominent national advocacy organization for youth in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, is joined by various organizations and individuals with expertise in public policy analysis, legal scholarship, and advocacy. They all urge the Court to grant the petition for review.

If left unreviewed, the Court of Appeals' decision will have severe consequences, not only in Oregon but possibly beyond. Conversely, granting the petition allows the Court to participate in the state and national development of the law. The Court can address the fundamental differences between children and adults who commit crimes, specifically in the context of transferring children to the adult criminal justice system.

The Oregon legislature aimed to establish a high statutory bar for considering children aged 12-14 (in grade school or middle school, here age 13) mature enough for trial in adult court. The Court of Appeals' decision effectively negates this threshold by setting the statutory bar for "sufficient sophistication and maturity" so low that virtually all cases will meet it. This contradicts the legislative history, which reveals that the legislature intended the opposite.

The Court of Appeals relied on a plain-meaning construction, improperly ignoring the body of developmental science that should have been used to interpret the statutory term at issue. The court also inappropriately used the test for adult criminal insanity as statutory context to interpret the juvenile waiver test. Additionally, the court failed to consider the profound constitutional concerns raised by its interpretation. The "avoidance canon" of statutory interpretation should have prompted the court to incorporate developmental science into the statutory definition, rather than ignoring it.

Summary of Argument

This case is important for the whole country. A group called the Juvenile Law Center, which fights for kids in the justice system, is asking the Supreme Court to review a decision made by a lower court. They want the Supreme Court to take a look at the case because it could affect how juvenile justice works in Oregon and other states.

The lower court ruled that a 13-year-old could be tried as an adult. This decision could have serious consequences because it makes it much easier for kids to be tried as adults, even though Oregon lawmakers wanted to make it harder.

The Juvenile Law Center argues that the lower court made a mistake. They say the court used a strict interpretation of the law and ignored scientific evidence about how children's brains develop. This evidence shows that young teenagers are not as mature as adults and shouldn't be treated the same way. The Juvenile Law Center wants the Supreme Court to review this decision and consider the scientific evidence when interpreting the law.

Summary of Argument

This case is very important for the whole country. A group called the Juvenile Law Center, which helps youth in the justice system, wants the Supreme Court to look at a decision made by a lower court in Oregon. The lower court said that kids as young as 13 can be tried as adults, even though the Oregon law says it should be harder to try kids that young as adults.

The Juvenile Law Center says this lower court decision is wrong because it doesn’t think about how kids are different from adults. It's important to remember that kids don't always understand things the same way adults do, so trying them as adults could be unfair.

The Oregon law wanted to make it hard to try kids as adults, but the lower court basically made it easy. The Juvenile Law Center wants the Supreme Court to fix this problem and make sure the Oregon law is followed correctly.