Juvenile Justice

All Cases

13 Juvenile Justice Cases

Held v. Montana
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024

Juvenile Justice

+2 Ƶ

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’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof 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
Held V. Montana. Explore Case.
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Held v. Montana

Juvenile Justice

+2 Ƶ

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’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof 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.
Held V. Montana. Explore Case.
State v. Ochoa
Texas Supreme Court
May 2024

Juvenile Justice

State v. Ochoa

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
Explore case
State V. Ochoa. Explore Case.
Texas Supreme Court
May 2024
State v. Ochoa

Juvenile Justice

State v. Ochoa

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
State V. Ochoa. Explore Case.
Niya in front of school
South Carolina
Feb 2023

Juvenile Justice

+2 Ƶ

CYAP v. Wilson

The Ƶ filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” and “disorderly conduct” laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” 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 ‘disorderly conduct’ and similar vague crimes.
Explore case
Cyap V. Wilson. Explore Case.
South Carolina
Feb 2023
Niya in front of school

Juvenile Justice

+2 Ƶ

CYAP v. Wilson

The Ƶ filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” and “disorderly conduct” laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” 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 ‘disorderly conduct’ and similar vague crimes.
Cyap V. Wilson. Explore Case.
Jones v. Mississippi
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 “permanently incorrigible” before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
Explore case
Jones V. Mississippi. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Jones v. Mississippi

Juvenile Justice

Jones v. Mississippi

Whether the Eighth Amendment requires a judge or jury to make a finding that a juvenile is “permanently incorrigible” before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
Jones V. Mississippi. Explore Case.
1
23