Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Veal v. State
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled Robert Veal, sentenced to life without parole at age seventeen, deserved a new sentence review. This was based on a US Supreme Court decision and the original court not finding him permanently incorrigible.
State v. Sweet
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled a life without parole sentence for juveniles is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. This case involved a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder.
People v. Lozano
The court held a juvenile's life without parole sentence required review under Miller v. Alabama. The defendant committed their crime as a juvenile, prompting the appeal.
In re J.G.
The Supreme Court held that sentencing a 16-year-old to life without parole for capital murder violates the Eighth Amendment. This ruling found such a sentence to be cruel and unusual punishment for juvenile offenders.
People v. Reyes
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that mandatory consecutive minimum sentences for a juvenile constituted a de facto life sentence, violating the Eighth Amendment. The case was remanded for resentencing considering youth.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that Washington's "auto-decline" law unconstitutionally forces all 16- and 17-year-olds into adult court. It claims the law denies consideration of a defendant's youth, leading to disproportionate sentences.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center in Support of Appellant
The brief argues a suspicionless body cavity search of a 12-year-old was unreasonable. It claims the court wrongly applied adult search standards to a child, violating her Fourth Amendment rights.
Brief of FSU Public Interest Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, ACLU of Florida, CFFSY, The Center on Children and Families at UF, Children and Youth Law Clinic at UM, FACDL, FCF, FJRRP at FIU, et. al., as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Petitioner
The brief argues that lengthy prison sentences for juveniles deny them a chance for rehabilitation, violating their constitutional rights. It requests new sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders under Florida law.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Children’s Law Center, Inc., et al. in Support of Appellant Matthew Aalim
This brief argues that Ohio's mandatory law sending juveniles to adult court should be eliminated. It asserts that current law ignores the individual differences of youth and the purpose of the juvenile justice system.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center and National Juvenile Defender Center on Behalf of Appellant Matthew Aalim
The brief argues Ohio laws violate due process by mandating that 16- and 17-year-olds charged with certain firearm offenses be transferred to adult court without an individualized review. This denies youth their constitutional rights.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc., and Professor Brandon Garrett in Support of Appellee and Affirmance
Children's confessions must be voluntary, requiring great care during questioning. Protective standards, supported by research and law, are vital to prevent false confessions, especially for children with limited cognitive abilities.
Brief for Amici Curiae Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice et al., in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues mandatory life sentences for juveniles, even with parole, are unconstitutional. It claims parole offers no real chance for release, making these sentences effectively the same as life without parole.
Brief of The Sentencing Project as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that mandatory life sentences for children, even with parole, violate the Eighth Amendment. It asserts that children's immaturity makes them less culpable and undeserving of such severe punishment.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Juvenile Law Center in Support of Petitioners
This brief argues that lengthy consecutive sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenses are unconstitutional. It claims these sentences are effectively life without parole, denying a meaningful chance for release.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that a 91.5-year sentence for a juvenile's non-homicide crime is unconstitutional. It claims this sentence, with 45 years before parole, is effectively life without parole, denying a chance for release.