Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief for the National District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent
The brief argues against automatically banning life without parole for all juvenile offenders. It asserts that such sentences should be judged based on individual crime severity and the offender's history, not age alone.
Brief of Sixteen Members of the United States House of Representatives as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
This brief argues Florida can impose life without parole on juveniles. It contends claims that the US is alone in doing so are false and that international legal obligations do not prohibit such sentences.
Brief of the Sentencing Project as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment. It asserts that juveniles are less culpable than adults and deserve individualized sentencing.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Appellant, O.K.
An amicus brief supports the argument that military commissions lack jurisdiction over minors because the law is silent on juvenile personal jurisdiction. It argues that federal law and social science support treating juveniles differently.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae In Support of Petitioner's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Based on His Juvenile Status
This brief argues that classifying a child soldier as an "enemy combatant" violates domestic and international law. It contends Omar Khadr, captured at age 15, was improperly denied age-appropriate care.
Brief of Pacific Juvenile Defender Center et al. on Behalf of Appellant
The brief argues that juveniles who remain in juvenile court, but whose adjudications can be used as "strikes" in adult court, lose their right to a jury trial unconstitutionally.
Brief of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that a 12-year-old sentenced to 30 years without parole in adult court was an uninformed and unfortunate decision. It suggests the juvenile system should have retained jurisdiction.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center and National Juvenile Defender Center as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that a jury should consider a 16-year-old defendant's age as a standalone factor when evaluating a duress defense. The lower court erred by limiting age's relevance to only a comparison with the coercers' ages.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center in support of Omar Khadr
Amici argue military commissions cannot prosecute minors due to absent jurisdiction rules and lack of distinct processes for youth. Federal law and science show adolescents differ from adults, making them less culpable.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center and National Juvenile Defender Center as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant-Appellant
The brief argues that a jury should consider a defendant's young age when evaluating a duress defense. Current law and developmental research support that age is a categorical factor, not just relative to coercers.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al in support Plaintiffs/Appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc
This brief argues that strip-searching juveniles for minor violations is unconstitutional. It claims the current policy misuses child-protective principles to justify traumatic searches that adults would not face.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, et al. in Support of Appellant Corey Spears
Waiver of legal counsel in delinquency cases jeopardizes a youth's fundamental rights and creates serious lifelong consequences. Parents cannot serve as effective legal counsel due to potential conflicts of interest.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center; The Center on Children and Families; The Central Juvenile Defender Center; The ChildLaw Center et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondent-Appellee
The EJJ provision is void for vagueness because it fails to adequately define prohibited conduct, harming youth and hindering effective rehabilitation. Separate hearings for EJJ and transfer motions also undermine juvenile court goals.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant
The petitioner argues ineffective counsel failed to suppress her confession. Counsel conceded voluntariness, despite police not advising the then 14-year-old she would be prosecuted as an adult.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, et al. In Support of Respondent Lee Boyd Malvo
This brief argues that executing 16 and 17-year-olds is cruel and unusual punishment. It asserts that evolving standards and new research show these youths are less culpable and deterrable than adults.