Resource Library

Topics

Filters

Clear Filters

Resource Library

New to the Resource Library?

Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.

How to use the Library

Memorandum of Amici Curiae the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality and the Center for Indian Law & Policy on the Timing of a Post-Admission Judicial Hearing

The brief argues a post-admission judicial hearing for involuntarily hospitalized foster children is required within 72 hours. This timeframe aligns with state law, constitutional due process, and other states' practices.

involuntary commitmentminorsdue processconfinementpsychiatric evaluationfoster childreninvoluntary psychiatric confinementFourteenth Amendment (U.S.)post-admission hearing
(2015)

Amicus Curiae Brief of American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Juvenile Law Center

The brief argues a teen's child pornography conviction is flawed, misinterpreting the law and harming rehabilitation. It claims the ruling contradicts the law's protective intent and has absurd registration consequences.

child pornographyadolescentsexual identitysextingrehabilitationrehabilitationsex offenderminorstatutory interpretationrisk-taking behaviorimmaturityidentity developmentjuvenile records
(2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Civitas ChildLaw Clinic, and Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth in Support of Petitioner-Appellant James Walker

This brief argues that children are less culpable than adults and should not receive the harshest punishments. It contends that a life without parole sentence for a juvenile is unconstitutional without an individualized sentencing hearing.

Millerchildrenjuvenileslife without paroleLWOPyouthmitigating factorindividualized sentencing hearinghomicidediminished culpabilitylesser blameworthinessheightened capacity for rehabilitation
(2015)

Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants Darien Vasquez and Brandon Valentin

This brief argues lengthy sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders, like Vasquez and Valentin, are unconstitutional. It claims these sentences effectively deny a meaningful chance for release, violating the Eighth Amendment.

Grahamyouth-specific characteristicsgeriatric releasemeaningful opportunity for releasechildrenMillerde facto life sentencesEighth Amendment (U.S.)non-homicide crimes
(2015)

Brief of the Colorado Juvenile Defender Center as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Respondent

This brief argues that mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. It asserts that children differ from adults, requiring individualized sentencing and a chance for release based on maturity.

MillerGrahammeaningful opportunity for releaseLWOPlife without paroleindividualized sentencingdemonstrated maturity and rehabilitationretroactive applicationcollateral reviewchildrenmitigating attributes of adolescencejuvenile sentencingresentencinghomicideEighth Amendment (U.S.)impulsivityunderdeveloped sense of responsibilityadolescent development
(2015)

Amicus Brief of the District Attorneys for the Second and Eighteenth Judicial Districts

The brief argues that a prior ruling on juvenile life sentences does not apply to old cases. It asks the Court to uphold existing life without parole sentences or, if not, to allow new sentencing hearings.

collateral reviewMiller mandatory life without parolewatershed ruleretroactive application resentencing juvenile offenders
(2015)

Juvenile Law Center, Children & Family Justice Center, et al.’s Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Respondent-Appellee

The brief argues Illinois's Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act violates equal protection and due process for youth.

violent offender registrationculpabilityadolescent developmentMiller rehabilitationdevelopmental differencesyouthful offendersequal protectionpublic registries juvenile offendersSex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
(2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center and Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth in Support of Appellants

This brief argues that mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional and should apply retroactively. It asserts that prior rulings support retroactivity for this substantive or watershed procedural rule.

RICOgang membersjuvenile homicidechildrenadolescent developmentEighth Amendment (U.S.)Millercollateral reviewresentencingcruel and unusual punishmentmandatory life without paroleLWOPTeaguewatershed rulejuvenile life without parolereduced culpabilitylessened blameworthinessattributes of youthbrainvulnerability to negative influencespeer pressureimmaturity
(2015)

Juvenile Law Center Brief on Behalf of Petitioner Lucero

This brief argues an 84-year sentence for a juvenile nonhomicide offender is unconstitutional. It claims a 42-year parole ineligibility period is effectively life without parole, violating the Eighth Amendment.

meaningful opportunity for releaseMillerGrahamchildrenjuvenile offendersEighth Amendment (U.S.)de facto life without parolenonhomicidelessened culpabilitycapacity for rehabilitationdevelopmental characteristicsdiminished culpabilitylessened blameworthiness
(2015)

Application to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al., as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Appellant

The brief argues that a 77-year-to-life sentence for a juvenile is unconstitutional, functionally equivalent to life without parole. It contends that the sentencing court failed to consider the defendant's youth as required by law.

Millerretroactive applicationresentencinglessened culpabilitymitigating factorslessened blameworthinesscapacity for changelife without paroleLWOPde facto life without paroleageage-related characteristicsjuvenilefinalitymeaningful opportunity for releaseEighth Amendment (U.S.)adolescent development
(2015)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Juvenile Law Center on Behalf of Appellant Eric Long in Support of Jurisdiction

This brief argues that discretionary life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional. It asserts that such sentences should rarely be imposed and seeks clear guidelines for their use.

mitigating factoryouthJLWOPMillerintent to killhomicideimmaturitypresumption of immaturitycomplicity
(2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Submitted by the Washington Defender Association, Black Prisoners Caucus, Columbia Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation, and TeamChild et al.

This brief argues that courts should consider a defendant's youth during sentencing, citing neuroscience and Supreme Court precedent. It asserts that youth can lessen a person's blame for a crime.

brain developmentneurological developmentmitigating circumstancesyouthculpabilityblameworthinessintellectual disabilityindividual circumstances
(2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae:Juvenile Law Center and American Probation And Parole Association et al., in Support of Appellant, Petitioner on Review

This brief urges the Court to review a decision that lowers the bar for trying children as adults. It argues that the appeals court ignored scientific understanding of youth development and legislative intent.

due processwaiver statuteadolescent development individual determination of child culpabilityblameworthiness
(2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, et al. Supporting Respondent Jerri Smiley

The brief argues Missouri's mandatory minimum sentence for armed felonies is unconstitutional for juveniles. It prevents judges from considering a child's unique characteristics and reduced culpability during sentencing.

MillerGrahamRopermandatory sentencingadolescent's reduced culpability (blameworthiness)adolescent developmentblameworthinessreduced culpability
(2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae State of Michigan and 15 Other States in Support of Respondent

This brief argues against retroactively applying a ruling that changed sentencing for juvenile offenders. It asserts the original ruling was procedural, not substantive, meaning it doesn't change what sentence can be imposed.

retroactive reliefMillerEighth AmendmentJWLOPjuvenile life without paroleresentencing
(2015)
1...262728...62