Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union, et. al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that race remains a factor in juvenile death penalty cases despite court efforts. It asserts that racial bias discounts youth as a mitigating factor, leading to a disproportionate number of youth of color on death row.
Brief of the European Union and Members of the International Community in Support of Respondent
The brief argues international consensus opposes executing offenders under 18 at the time of their crimes, citing practices of most nations and international law. It urges the Court to consider this global agreement.
Brief of New York, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and West Virginia as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that executing juvenile offenders is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A national consensus now exists, with 31 states and the federal government prohibiting such executions.
Brief of the States of Alabama, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues against a complete ban on the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds. It asserts that some adolescent offenders can understand the severity of their actions, making a categorical exemption unjustified.
Brief for the American Psychological Association, and the Missouri Psychological Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent
This brief argues that executing 16 and 17-year-olds is unconstitutional. It states adolescents lack the maturity, brain development, and impulse control for adult-level decision-making and blameworthiness.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al. in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that executing individuals who committed crimes at ages 16 or 17 is unconstitutional. It claims evolving standards and scientific research show such executions are cruel and unusual punishment.
Brief of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that scientific evidence shows adolescent brains are still developing, impacting impulse control and decision-making. These differences should categorically disqualify 16 and 17-year-old offenders from the death penalty.
Brief of Center on Children & the Law; Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice; Children & Family Justice Center; and Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Lionel Tate, Appellant
This brief argues for reversing a lower court's ruling. It claims the court failed to consider Lionel's age and violated his constitutional rights, including due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Youth Law Center Brief in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that Proposition 21 harms public safety by increasing youth recidivism and injury. It also contends that the law's lack of prosecutorial guidelines worsens racial disparities in the justice system.
Non-Party Brief of Juvenile Law Center and National Center for Youth Law in Support of Douglas D.
The brief argues that schools are safe, but a false perception of rising violence leads to harsh, punitive measures. "Zero tolerance" policies criminalize minor acts, pushing children into an unsuitable justice system.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Juvenile Defender Center, Children and Family Justice Center, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Petitioners argue that life without parole for non-homicide crimes committed by minors is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, citing youth's unique characteristics and capacity for change.
Amicus Brief by the Promise of Justice Initiative
This brief argues executing those 21 and under is cruel and unusual punishment. It cites scientific evidence of ongoing brain development and a national consensus against executing young adults.
Brief Amicus Curiae of Becky Wilson and the National Association of Victims of Juvenile Murderers in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that a new ruling should not apply retroactively to old cases, as it would disrupt settled convictions and retraumatize victims' families. The brief claims no one benefits from relitigating already decided issues.
Brief of Amici Curiae Current and Former Prosecutors, Department of Justice Officials, and Judges in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that sentences for juvenile offenders must consider their age and maturity, holding that life without parole is excessive for most children. It asserts this principle applies uniformly, regardless of sentencing schemes.
Amicus Curiae Letter in Support of Petition for Review in Chelsea Becker v. Superior Court
The brief argues that California law does not permit murder charges against women for pregnancy loss. It states that such prosecutions harm women and children, deter essential healthcare, and lack medical support.