Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Donte Lamar Jones
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional and should apply retroactively. It claims the Supreme Court already applied it retroactively and that it's a substantive and watershed rule.
Brief of Ad Hoc Committee Comprised of Former Officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections and Correctional, Penological, Public Safety, and Mental Health Organizations Together with Individual Experts as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant
This brief argues that scientific research shows youth are less culpable than adults and more capable of change. It asserts that life without parole for juveniles serves no penological purpose and is unconstitutional.
Brief on Appeal of Attorney General Bill Schuette as Intervenor
The brief argues the Miller decision does not apply retroactively to already-final cases because it is a new procedural rule, not a watershed rule. The state also contends prior applications of Miller did not address retroactivity.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al., in Support of Petition to Transfer
The brief argues that Indiana's felony murder law applied to youth conflicts with Supreme Court rulings recognizing children's distinct culpability and development.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center and the National Juvenile Defender Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
This brief argues that sentencing a child to prison until age 105 for non-homicide crimes is unconstitutional. It claims this "virtual life without parole" sentence denies the required meaningful chance for release.
Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Support of Petitioner Filed with Consent of Parties
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole for youth is unconstitutional. It claims juvenile offenders deserve a chance at release due to their diminished culpability and capacity for change.
Brief in Support of the Resentencing of Petitioner Angel Alejandro on Behalf of Amici Curiae Robert M. Morgenthau, the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Child Welfare League of America, and Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators et al.
This brief supports resentencing a juvenile offender. It argues against using standard guidelines that would lead to a life sentence, urging the court to consider new scientific understanding of youth and rehabilitation.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, Loyola Civitas Childlaw Clinic et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that Illinois laws automatically trying and sentencing 15- and 16-year-olds for murder by accountability as adults are unconstitutional, lacking individualized consideration for minors.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center et al. on Behalf of Qu'eed Batts
This brief argues that a new life without parole sentence for a juvenile offender is unconstitutional. It claims the sentence was imposed arbitrarily and without proper consideration of youth-related factors required by law.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Victims & Victims' Rights Organizations
Victim families urge the court to retroactively apply a ruling that would allow individualized sentencing for youth offenders convicted of homicide. They believe past juvenile offenders deserve a chance to show rehabilitation.
Brief of Amici Curiae Ad Hoc Committee of Former Prosecutors, Former Judges, Former Governmental Officials, Leaders of Bar Associations and Law School Deans and Professors, in Support of Defendants-appellants
The brief argues that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. It seeks retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama, requiring individualized review for past juvenile sentences.
Amicus Curiae Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Defendant-appellants Raymond Curtis Carp, Dakotah Wolfgang Eliason, and Cortez Roland Davis
This brief argues that Michigan's severe juvenile sentencing laws, shaped by racial bias, disproportionately affect children of color. It asserts that life without parole should never apply to any child.
Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Faith-based Organizations and Religious Leaders
Faith groups argue the Supreme Court’s Miller v. Alabama ruling should apply to past juvenile cases. This allows individualized sentencing considering youth and rehabilitation, aligning with Eighth Amendment morality.
Amicus Curiae Brief of the State Appellate Defender Office
The brief argues Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively to Mr. Carp and others.
ACLU Amicus Brief
The brief argues that a US Supreme Court ruling, which bans mandatory life without parole for juveniles, should apply to past cases. This would allow hundreds of Michigan prisoners, sentenced as children, a chance at release.