Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brief of the National District Attorneys Association and Other Prosecutors’ Associations as Amici Curiae in Support of Louisiana
Prosecutors argue that applying the Miller rule retroactively creates unique difficulties, unlike other substantive legal changes.
Brief of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice and the Criminal Justice Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party
This brief argues the Court should not decide if Miller v. Alabama is retroactive. Instead, it suggests the Court consider if juvenile life without parole is always unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
Brief of Former Juvenile Court Judges as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that the Supreme Court's ruling against mandatory life without parole for juveniles should apply retroactively. It asserts that this change is a new substantive rule and is practically feasible to implement.
Brief of Amici Curiae of Certain Family Members of Victims Killed by Youths in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that mandatory life sentences for youth without parole should apply retroactively. It seeks to extend the 2012 Miller v. Alabama decision to those sentenced before it, honoring victims by promoting mercy and redemption.
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner
This brief argues that the Supreme Court's ruling in *Miller v. Alabama*, which prohibits mandatory life without parole for juveniles, applies retroactively. The ruling is a new, substantive change that should impact past convictions.
Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Louisiana, in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that the Miller v. Alabama ruling, which bans mandatory life without parole for juveniles, should apply retroactively. It asserts this rule is either substantive or a critical procedural "watershed" exception.
Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
The ABA argues that Miller v. Alabama made juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional in most cases. This rule should apply retroactively, allowing many previously sentenced juveniles to be resentenced.
Brief of Amici Curiae Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Burk Foster, John Whitley, and the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues against mandatory life without parole for juveniles, stating it violates the Eighth Amendment. It asserts that young offenders can rehabilitate and should have a chance for parole, even in serious cases.
Brief of the Equal Justice Initiative on Behalf of Dozens Sentenced to Die in Prison When They Were Children as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues a ban on mandatory life without parole for minors must apply to all past cases. This is a substantive rule, meaning it changes the law, not just how it's applied.
Brief of Northwestern University School of Law’s Children and Family Justice Center and Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, as banned by *Miller v. Alabama*, should apply retroactively. It asserts that children are less culpable and have a greater capacity for change.
Amici Curiae Brief of Juvenile Law Center in Support of Appellant, Robert C.
The brief argues adolescent development and maturity are crucial in legal interpretation. It asserts the trial court erred by not finding the child, Robert C., lacked criminal capacity, given his age, immaturity, and trauma.