Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Combined Application to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent, The People of the State of California
The brief argues that youthful offender parole should not apply to serious crimes like special circumstance murder. It asserts the state has a clear right to distinguish between offenders eligible for parole and those who are not.
Application to File Amici Curiae Brief & Brief of Amici Curiae Human Rights Watch et al., in Support of Defendant & Appellant Tony Hardin
This brief argues that denying parole hearings to those aged 18-25 sentenced to life without parole violates equal protection.
Application of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Juvenile Justice Scholars and Nonprofits to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellant; [Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief
This brief argues that California law should allow parole hearings for all young adults under 26 sentenced to life without parole.
Non-Party Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center and Fourteen Juvenile Justice, Criminal Justice, Child Welfare Systems, and Adolescent Development Experts in Support of Defendant-Appellant Damian L. Hauschultz
The brief argues children need special consideration during interrogations due to their vulnerability. It asserts the trial court overlooked the impact of a 14-year-old's brain development and trauma on his statements.
Amicus Curiae Brief of Gonzaga University School of Law Women's Law Caucus, Seattle University School of Law Women's Law Caucus, and University of Washington Women's Law Caucus
The Women's Law Caucus argues that Washington law should recognize a special relationship between universities and students. This relationship compels universities to protect students from sexual assault, even beyond campus borders.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center; the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior; the Sentencing Project; and the Children’s Policy and Law Initiative of Indiana on Behalf of Appellant
This brief argues that a 100-year sentence for a child is unconstitutional. It states youth are less culpable than adults and have greater reform prospects, meaning such a long sentence is effectively life without parole.
[Proposed] Brief Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant, O.R., by Amici Drug Policy Alliance, Any Positive Change, the Beyond Do No Harm Network, et al.
This brief argues that a child was wrongly removed from a father based on a single drug test, without evidence of harm. It challenges the legal assumption that drug use automatically creates a substantial risk to children.
Brief of the Am. Pub. Health Ass’n and the Nat’l Ass’n of Cnty. & City Health Officials as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees
The brief argues that pharmacies created an ongoing public health nuisance by over-dispensing opioids, causing lasting harm. It seeks court-ordered abatement to fund treatment and recovery services in affected communities.
Brief of N.Y. Soc’y of Addiction Med., et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant
This brief argues that Cameron Douglas's additional prison sentence for drug possession in jail should be reversed.
Brief of Disability Rts. Tex. & Legal Action Ctr. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant
Amici argue Alcohol Use Disorder is a chronic brain disorder, meeting the ADA’s definition of disability. They assert the lower court misapplied the law and should have recognized Mr. Mueck’s need for reasonable accommodation.
Brief of Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, NY County Defender Services, and Queens Defenders as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and Application for Appointment of a Receiver
This brief supports a motion to hold New York City's Department of Correction in contempt and appoint a receiver. It argues jail violence and dysfunction are intolerable, violating detainees' rights and the court's consent decree.
Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, Aaron Regunberg and Leonela Felix in Support of Affirmance
This brief argues that prison officials should not receive qualified immunity. It asserts their prolonged solitary confinement of an inmate caused severe mental and physical harm, violating the Eighth Amendment.
Brief of Former Corrections Executives as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner and Reversal of the Seventh Circuit
Prolonged solitary confinement causes severe harm, is costly, and ineffective. For people with serious mental illness, it intensifies issues, creating a harmful cycle with no clear penological justification.
Brief of Brock Chisholm, Sondra Crosby, Beatrice Patsalides Hofmann, David Luban, and Stephen N. Xenakis as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that using information obtained through torture is illegal and deeply harms the justice system. It asserts such evidence can never be considered "harmless error" and calls for reversal of a previous ruling.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Center for Law, Brain & Behavior in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee
This brief argues that prolonged solitary confinement caused severe and lasting psychological and physical harm to Mr. Cintron, worsening his pre-existing conditions. It contends this treatment constitutes cruel punishment.