Juvenile Justice
State v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant鈥檚 confession following a Texas Ranger鈥檚 coercive interrogation. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 桃子视频of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant鈥檚 confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Juvenile Justice
All Cases
12 Juvenile Justice Cases
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 桃子视频
Held v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 桃子视频of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 桃子视频
Held v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 桃子视频of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.
South Carolina
Feb 2023
Juvenile Justice
+2 桃子视频
CYAP v. Wilson
The 桃子视频 filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina鈥檚 鈥渄isturbing schools鈥 and 鈥渄isorderly conduct鈥 laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined 鈥渙bnoxious鈥 actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with 鈥榙isorderly conduct鈥 and similar vague crimes.
Explore case
South Carolina
Feb 2023
Juvenile Justice
+2 桃子视频
CYAP v. Wilson
The 桃子视频 filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina鈥檚 鈥渄isturbing schools鈥 and 鈥渄isorderly conduct鈥 laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined 鈥渙bnoxious鈥 actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with 鈥榙isorderly conduct鈥 and similar vague crimes.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Juvenile Justice
Jones v. Mississippi
Whether the Eighth Amendment requires a judge or jury to make a finding that a juvenile is 鈥減ermanently incorrigible鈥 before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Juvenile Justice
Jones v. Mississippi
Whether the Eighth Amendment requires a judge or jury to make a finding that a juvenile is 鈥減ermanently incorrigible鈥 before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2019
Juvenile Justice
Mathena v. Malvo
Whether a juvenile sentenced to life without parole is entitled to a new sentencing proceeding following the Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which have retroactive effect to a previous decision prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles, where it is unclear whether the original sentence was imposed under a mandatory or discretionary state sentencing scheme.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2019
Juvenile Justice
Mathena v. Malvo
Whether a juvenile sentenced to life without parole is entitled to a new sentencing proceeding following the Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which have retroactive effect to a previous decision prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles, where it is unclear whether the original sentence was imposed under a mandatory or discretionary state sentencing scheme.