Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Bortz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
The bank processed wire transfers for elderly customers who were victims of a scam. The court found that the bank had a duty of care to intervene in suspicious transactions.
United States v. Grant
The court upheld a reduced 60-year sentence for Corey Grant, who as a juvenile received a mandatory life sentence. This followed the Supreme Court ruling that mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost in Support of Appellee State of Ohio
The brief argues the General Assembly's decision to transfer certain juveniles to adult court without an amenability hearing is constitutional. It asserts juveniles have no right to such a hearing, and the claim was not properly raised.
Brief of Amici Curiae the Innocence Project, Inc. and the Ohio Innocence Project in Support of Petitioner-Appellant Chaz Bunch
This brief argues for a new framework to assess eyewitness identification reliability. It contends the petitioner's rape conviction, based on a problematic identification, should be reconsidered with scientific evidence.
Amicus Brief of Crime Victim’s Representative Nelson Rivera
This brief argues that Malvo's request for a new sentencing hearing undermines his prior promises to victims and disregards their rights. It highlights the lasting devastation caused to victims' families.
Brief of Roderick & Solange Macarthur Justice Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner Lee Boyd Malvo
This brief argues that Maryland's Constitution forbids life without parole for juveniles. It asserts that the state's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause offers broader protection than the Eighth Amendment.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Lee Boyd Malvo
This brief argues Mr. Malvo's sentence is unconstitutional because it never accounted for his youth or systemic racism. It asserts a new Maryland law cannot fix this and Mr. Malvo must be resentenced.
Brief of Amici Curiae Community Passageways, Choose 180, and Rooted Reentry et al.
This brief argues that sentencing children to life in prison, or terms amounting to it, is unconstitutional. It asserts Tonelli's sentence ignored racial bias and lacks valid purpose, advocating for resentencing.
Brief of Amici Curiae Children and Family Justice Center and Juvenile Law Center in Support of Defendant-Appellee
The brief argues that offenses committed by individuals under 18 should be excluded from Class X sentencing eligibility. This change would address the disproportionate impact of such sentences on Black and Brown youth in Illinois.
Addiction as a brain disease revised: Why it still matters, and the need for consilience
The "addiction as a brain disease" concept, while influential, faces scientific criticism. This summary addresses these critiques, arguing that refining the original postulates can improve patient care and treatment development.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et Al., Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Lee Boyd Malvo
The brief argues Mr. Malvo's sentence is unconstitutional because it did not account for his youth or systemic racism. It asserts a new Maryland law cannot fix this issue, requiring resentencing.
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of John Antonio Poole
This brief supports John Antonio Poole, arguing his life without parole sentence is unconstitutional. New scientific evidence on adolescent brain development and Supreme Court rulings should allow resentencing.
Brief of Amici Curiae Charles Selby in Support of Defendant-appellant John Poole
This brief argues that the legal system should align with medical science regarding brain development. It contends that the reasoning limiting severe penalties for juvenile offenders should extend to individuals up to age 25.
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Defendant-appellant John Antonio Poole
The brief argues that scientific evidence shows late adolescents, ages 18-21, share the same developmental immaturity as younger teens, which should allow them to challenge their sentences.
Brief of Advancement Project, Juvenile Law Center, and 38 Other Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that students' non-threatening off-campus speech deserves full First Amendment protection. Expanding school authority over such speech disproportionately harms marginalized students and stifles healthy development.