Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of Amicus Curiae The Innocence Project in Support of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that uncorroborated stranger identifications showing scientific unreliability are legally insufficient for conviction. It highlights the risk of wrongful convictions based on flawed eyewitness memory.
Brief of Proposed Amicus Curiae the Innocence Project
The brief argues that first-time, in-court identifications are inherently unreliable and should not be permitted under due process.
Brief of Proposed Amicus Curiae the Innocence Project
The brief argues that first-time, in-court identifications are unreliable and uniquely suggestive. It contends they should not be permitted without the same safeguards as out-of-court identifications.
Brief of Center for Law, Brain & Behavior and Neuroscientists as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant Jwainus Perry
The brief argues that harmful environments, such as solitary confinement, cause physical brain injury. It asserts that legal policies denying this are based on outdated science.
[Proposed] Brief of the National Health Law Program, Autism Legal Resource Center, Bazelon Center, Harvard Law CHLPI, Center for Public Representation, DREDF, Health Law Advocates, National Autism Law Center, and The Kennedy Forum as Amici Curiae.
This brief argues that the lower court wrongly dismissed a mental health parity case. It claims the company denied treatment and refused to disclose information needed to prove discrimination.
Brief of Amici Curiae Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, et al., in Support of Petitioner-Appellants
The brief argues that young adults, aged 19, sentenced to natural life should be allowed to challenge their sentences. It seeks to clarify the standard for filing such appeals, citing evolving understanding of brain development.
Brief for Psychology and Neuroscience Scholars in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that a football coach's postgame prayers coerced student athletes, violating the Establishment Clause. Students felt pressured to join due to the coach's authority and fear of negative consequences.
Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that adultification bias against children of color can lead to unfair treatment in court, both in being tried as adults and in sentencing. It suggests new rules to address this bias.
Brief of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues that current law does not properly protect children in adult court. It seeks a new rule creating a presumption that children should receive lighter sentences, aligning with state constitutional protections.
Brief of King County Department of Public Defense
The brief argues that registering youth under 18 as sex offenders is harmful and lacks public safety benefits. Research shows 97% of these youth do not reoffend, while registration makes them targets and increases suicide attempts.
Brief of the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners
The ABA argues that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is unconstitutional due to juveniles' lesser culpability. Such sentences are disproportionate and do not serve justice's goals.
Amicus Curiae of Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan for Defendant-appellant John Antonio Poole
This brief argues a later request for judgment relief is valid due to a retroactive law change. It also claims Michigan's constitution prohibits mandatory life without parole for young adults without individual review.
Brief of Amici Curiae Neuroscientists, Psychologists, and Criminal Justice Scholars in Support of Defendant-appellant Mr. Poole
The brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for late adolescents. Scientific evidence shows no meaningful difference in brain development between those under and over 18.
Brief for Roderick & Solange Macarthur Justice Center as Amicus Curiae Supporting Defendant-appellant
The brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for young adults are cruel. It claims this violates the Michigan Constitution, which offers broader protection than the U.S. Constitution.
Brief of the Sentencing Project et al. in Support of Appellant Sheldon Mattis
This brief argues that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 18-to-20-year-olds are unconstitutional. It suggests extending this protection to all late adolescents, citing developmental science and evolving standards of decency.