Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Commonwealth v. Canadyan
The court overturned a probation violation for not wearing GPS. It ruled punishment cannot be based on circumstances beyond one's control, like homelessness.
Adolescent Brain Development and the Risk for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems
During adolescence, the brain undergoes significant changes, including the growth of areas linked to complex thinking and emotions. These developmental changes also make the adolescent brain more vulnerable to environmental influences.
Adolescent Development of the Reward System
Adolescents exhibit increased reward-seeking behavior due to changes in the brain's reward system. The striatum, a dopamine-rich area, becomes more sensitive to rewards during this developmental period.
Can Adolescents Learn Self-control? Delay of Gratification in the Development of Control over Risk Taking
This article explores whether the ability to delay gratification can control risky adolescent behaviors, even in highly sensation-seeking individuals. It also investigates if experiencing risky behavior can improve self-control.
In re F.C. III
The PA Supreme Court upheld Act 53, letting parents petition for minors' involuntary drug treatment. The civil, therapeutic process, based on medical review, satisfied due process.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hussey Copper Ltd
Employers must individually assess methadone users' ability to perform jobs. A blanket denial violated the ADA, resulting in a settlement for the applicant.
People v. Becker
The court upheld a murder conviction, finding the defendant's methamphetamine use was linked to the crime. Drug use did not establish a successful mental state defense in this case.
Sanchez v. Aviva Life & Annuity Co.
The court allowed claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty against Aviva to proceed. It dismissed a consumer law claim, ruling that insurance products are not covered.
People v. Mendez
A court found an 84-year-to-life sentence for a juvenile convicted of non-homicide crimes to be cruel and unusual punishment, violating both state and federal law. The sentence effectively denied parole until well past his life expectancy.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, the Children's Law Center of Massachusetts, the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, et. al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant/Respondent
This case argues New Mexico's process for sentencing juveniles as adults is unconstitutional. It claims judges, not juries, decide if a child receives an adult sentence, violating the right to a jury trial.
Brief of the Center for Children's Advocacy and Juvenile Law Center in Support of Defendant B.B.
This brief argues that Connecticut's youthful offender statute is unconstitutional. It claims the law improperly gives prosecutors too much power to decide if young people are tried as adults, denying due process.
Brief of the Center for Children's Advocacy and Juvenile Law Center in Support of Defendant David A. Fernandes
This brief argues a Connecticut law improperly lets prosecutors decide if a juvenile is tried as an adult, without clear rules or review. This denial of due process for forum selection is unconstitutional.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc
The brief argues that adolescent speech, even if offensive to adults, is normal for teenage development. Punishing students for such out-of-school expression is unjustified and expands school power beyond reasonable limits.
Brief of Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Juvenile Law Center, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues that juvenile adjudications should not increase adult sentences because juvenile courts lack the reliability of adult courts and are designed for youth rehabilitation, not future punishment.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
The brief argues S.G.'s seizure and questioning by officials violated the Fourth Amendment. No warrant, probable cause, or consent was present, and none of the exceptions apply to this non-school-related criminal investigation.