Summary of Argument

Amici support Respondent O.K.'s argument that military commissions convened pursuant to the Military Commissions Act (MCA) lack jurisdiction over O.K. The MCA is silent as to the issue of personal jurisdiction over minors and the military commissions do not provide for a distinct process for juveniles. It would be absurd to impute personal jurisdiction into a silence statute particularly given that federal law consistently accounts for the developmental differences between adults and youth.

It is widely understood that adolescents are categorically different than adults. Both United States Supreme Court jurisprudence and federal legislation reflect this understanding. Moreover, this federal law is complemented by an emerging body of social science research attesting to the developmental differences between adolescents and adults. This scholarships shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior; are more likely to consider only the immediate effects of their acts rather than the long-term consequences; and are far more susceptible to being overcome by external pressure from peers and authority figures than are adults, both in terms of how they evaluate their own behavior and in conforming their conduct. The scholarship also shows that because they live in the moment, adolescents feel that they have less of a stake in the future. All told, this recent research illustrates that juveniles as a class are less capable of controlling their impulses than adults, and thus are less culpable than adults.

Summary of Argument

This amicus brief argues in support of Omar Khadr's contention that military commissions established under the Military Commissions Act (MCA) lack jurisdiction over minors. The MCA does not explicitly address personal jurisdiction over juveniles, nor do military commissions provide a tailored process for addressing the unique needs of this population. It is unreasonable to infer jurisdiction from statutory silence, especially considering the well-established legal principle of treating minors differently from adults.

The categorical difference between adolescents and adults is widely acknowledged in both jurisprudence and legislation. Supreme Court rulings and federal statutes recognize the developmental immaturity of youth. Social science research corroborates these findings, demonstrating that adolescents exhibit greater impulsivity, prioritize immediate gratification, and are more vulnerable to peer and authority influence. This reduced capacity for self-regulation and diminished culpability are essential considerations in the legal treatment of minors.

In the context of military commissions, the absence of a specific process for juveniles and the MCA's silence on personal jurisdiction strongly suggest that these commissions lack the authority to try minors. It is implausible to assume jurisdiction in the absence of explicit statutory language, given the consistent legal recognition of the unique developmental status of youth.

Summary of Argument

Some experts argue that military courts, created under the Military Commissions Act (MCA), do not have the authority to try minors. The MCA does not mention personal jurisdiction over minors, and the military courts do not have a separate process for juveniles. It would be illogical to assume that the law grants them jurisdiction without explicitly stating so, especially since federal law recognizes the differences between adults and minors.

The Supreme Court and federal laws acknowledge that adolescents are different from adults. Social science research shows that teenagers are more prone to impulsive behavior, focusing on immediate consequences rather than long-term outcomes. They are also more influenced by peers and authority figures, making them less responsible for their actions.

Because they are more present-oriented, adolescents may feel less invested in their futures. Overall, this research demonstrates that minors are less capable of controlling their impulses and therefore less culpable than adults.

Summary of Argument

Some people believe that military courts should not be able to try children. They argue that the law does not clearly say that these courts have the power to do so, and that it would be wrong to assume they do. After all, there are many laws that treat kids differently from adults because they are not as mature.

Kids and adults are different in many ways. Studies have shown that teenagers are more likely to take risks and not think about the future. They are also more likely to do what others tell them to do, even if it's wrong. Because of these differences, the law often treats kids more leniently than adults.

It would be unfair to hold kids to the same standards as adults in military courts. These courts are designed for adults, and they do not have special rules for kids. This means that kids might not be able to understand the charges against them or defend themselves properly. Therefore, it is important that military courts do not have the power to try children.

Summary of Argument

Some people are saying that the military court does not have the right to try Omar Khadr, who is a child. The law that created the military court doesn't say anything about children. This brief argues that just because the military court law doesn't say anything about trying children, doesn't mean it is right. The law usually has special rules for children and teenagers because they are different from adults.

That is because kids and adults think differently. Kids and teens are more likely to do things without thinking about what might happen later. They also get pressured by other people more easily than adults. Scientists have found that kids are not as good at controlling their actions as adults. This means that kids should not be punished as harshly as adults.