Cases by Issue - Juveniles

Washington Dept. of Social & Health Services v. Guardianship of Keffeler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:48:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-1420

Petitioner

Washington Dept. of Social & Health Services

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Guardianship of Keffeler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

537 U.S. 371 (2003)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Advocates

Patricia A. Millett (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Teresa W. Roseborough (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Christine O. Gregoire (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The State of Washington, through its Department of Social and Health Services, provides foster care to certain children. It also receives and manages Social Security benefits, which it uses to cover its costs, for many of those children. Such beneficiary children filed suit, alleging that the Department's use of their benefits to reimburse itself for the foster care costs violated the "anti-attachment" provision of Title II of the Social Security Act, which protects certain benefits from "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process." The trial court enjoined the Department from continuing to charge its foster care costs against Social Security benefits and ordered restitution of previous reimbursement transfers. The Washington Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the trial court's holding that the Department's practices violated the anti-attachment provision.

Question

Does the State of Washington's use of foster childrens' Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for some of its expenditures violate the provision of the Social Security Act that protects benefits from "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process?"

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Washington Dept. of Social & Health Services, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the state's use of the Social Security benefits to reimburse itself does not violate the Social Security Act's anti-attachment provision. The Court reasoned that the Department's effort to become a representative payee and its use of Social Security benefits did not amount to employing an "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process" within the meaning of the provision. The Court also noted that a ruing adverse to the state could disadvantage children in foster care.

M.L.B V. S.L.J.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-853

Petitioner

M.L.B V. S.L.J.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 102 (1996)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1996

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1996

Advocates

Robert B. McDuff (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Rickey T. Moore (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1994, a Mississippi Chancery Court terminated M.L.B.'s parental rights to her two minor children. M.L.B. filed a timely appeal from the termination decree, but Mississippi law conditioned her right to appeal on prepayment of record preparation fees estimated at $2,352.36. Because she lacked the funds, M.L.B. sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court of Mississippi denied her application on the ground that, under its precedent, there is no right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil appeals. In front of the U.S. Supreme Court, M.L.B. argued that a State may not, consistent with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, condition appeals from trial court decrees terminating parental rights on the affected parent's ability to pay record preparation fees.

Question

May a State, consistent with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, condition appeals from trial court decrees terminating parental rights on the affected parent's ability to pay record preparation fees?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for M.L.B V. S.L.J., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that, just as a State may not block an indigent petty offender's access to an appeal afforded others, so Mississippi may not deny M.L.B., because of her poverty, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on which the trial court found her unfit to remain a parent. "We place decrees forever terminating parental rights in the category of cases in which the State may not 'bolt the door to equal justice,'" wrote Justice Ginsburg, "recognizing that parental termination decrees are among the most severe forms of state action." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend And Mother Of L. R. v. Richards

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-367

Petitioner

Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend And Mother Of L. R., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richards et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 689 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1992

Advocates

Richard Lynn Ducote (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul S. Weidenfeld (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend And Mother Of L. R., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

None

United States v. R. L. C.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1577

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

R. L. C.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 291 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1992

Advocates

Katherian D. Roe (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for R. L. C., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5037

None

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:21 +0000

Location

DeShaney Residence Neenah, WI

United States

44° 11' 8.9484" N, 88° 27' 45.3924" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-154

Petitioner

DeShaney

Respondent

Winnebago County

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Advocates

Donald J. Sullivan (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Mark J. Mingo (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Donald B. Ayer (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

In 1984, four-year-old Joshua DeShaney became comatose and then profoundly retarded due to traumatic head injuries inflicted by his father who physically beat him over a long period of time. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services took various steps to protect the child after receiving numerous complaints of the abuse; however, the Department did not act to remove Joshua from his father's custody. Joshua DeShaney's mother subsequently sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services, alleging that the Department had deprived the child of his "liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence."

Question

Does a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Winnebago County, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the State did not create those harms. "The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:17 +0000

Location

Piscataway High School

100 Behmer Rd Piscataway NJ 08854

Piscataway, NJ 08854

United States

40° 32' 52.188" N, 74° 28' 32.0592" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-712

Petitioner

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

T.L.O.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1984

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 2, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1985

Advocates

Allan J. Nodes (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lois De Julio (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Allan J. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lois DeJulio (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

Question

Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

No. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse.

Schall v. Martin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1248

Appellee

Martin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schall

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 82-1278

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 253 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1984

Advocates

Martin Guggenheim (on behalf of the Appellees)

Judith A. Gordon (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schall, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Tuten v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-6756

Petitioner

Tuten

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 660 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, March 30, 1983

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of the Respondent)

Linda Gillespie Stuntz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Santosky v. Kramer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5889

Petitioner

Santosky

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kramer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 745 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

Stephen Scavuzzo (on behalf of the Respondents)

Martin Guggenheim (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Santosky, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ralston v. Robinson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2049

Petitioner

Ralston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 201 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Advocates

Jerold S. Solovy (on behalf of the Respondent)

David A. Strauss (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ralston, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Fare v. Michael C.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-334

Petitioner

Fare

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michael C.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 707 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fare, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Secy. Of Pub. Welf. v. Institutionalized Juveniles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1715

Appellee

Institutionalized Juveniles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Secy. Of Pub. Welf.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 640 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Secy. Of Pub. Welf., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Swisher v. Brady

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-653

Appellee

Brady

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swisher

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

438 U.S. 204 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Decided

Monday, June 26, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Swisher, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Parham v. J. R.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1690

Appellee

J. R.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Parham

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 584 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 10, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Parham, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Durst v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5935

Petitioner

Durst

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 542 (1978)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

Breed v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1995

Petitioner

Breed

Respondent

Jones

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 519 (1975)

Argued

February 25-26, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Breed, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Dorszynski v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5284

Petitioner

Dorszynski

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 424 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Advocates

Robert H. Friebert (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Dorszynski, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 5005

None

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:04 +0000

Location

Juvenile Court of Philadelphia

1801 Vine St Philadelphia PA 19103

Philadelphia, PA 19103

United States

39° 57' 32.0652" N, 75° 10' 7.5756" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

322

Appellant

Joseph McKeiver et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 128, In re Burrus et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 528 (1971)

Argued

December 9-10, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1971

Advocates

Michael Meltsner (argued the cause for the petitioners in No. 128)

Robert Morgan (Attorney General of North Carolina, argued the cause for the respondent in No. 128)

Alfred L. Scanlan (argued the cause for the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 128)

Daniel E. Farmer (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 322)

Arlen Specter (argued the cause for the appellee in No. 322)

Facts of the Case

These cases involve juveniles brought to trial without a jury. The first involves Joseph McKeiver and Edward Terry, fifteen and sixteen year old boys charged with acts of robbery, theft, assault, and escape. At trial before the Juvenile Court of Philadelphia, each was denied a request for a jury trial. A Superior Court affirmed the order, and, after consolidation of their cases, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did likewise, saying there was no constitutional right to a jury trial for juveniles. In re Burrus concerns the consolidated cases of more than forty juveniles ranging in age from eleven to fifteen. Most of the juveniles faced misdemeanor charges stemming from protests of school consolidations that took place in November and December, 1968 during which, on six different occasions, they blocked traffic and refused to clear the roadway. Additionally, one sixteen-year-old juvenile faced charges of disorderly conduct for an incident that occurred at the local school. In each case, the judge denied a request for a jury trial. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of North Carolina both affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no constitutional requirement for a jury trial for juvenile defendants.

Question

Does the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, apply to juveniles?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pennsylvania, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

No. In a 6-3 plurality opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court concluded that the previous application of other criminal rights to juveniles, like rights to counsel and cross-examination, was done out of an emphasis on factfinding. "But one cannot say that in our legal system the jury is a necessary component of accurate factfinding." Additionally, the Court noted that, because juvenile prosecution is not considered either civil or criminal, the whole of the Sixth Amendment does not necessarily apply. As such, there is no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases.

In re Winship

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

778

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

In Re Winship

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 358 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, March 31, 1970

Advocates

Stanley Buchsbaum (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Rena K. Uviller (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

At age twelve, Samuel Winship was arrested and charged as a juvenile delinquent for breaking into a woman's locker and stealing $112 from her pocketbook. The charge also alleged that had Winship's act been done by an adult, it would constitute larceny. Relying on Section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provided that determinations of juvenile's guilt be based on a preponderance of the evidence, a Family Court found Winship guilty, despite acknowledging that the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Winship's appeal of the court's use of the lower "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof, was rejected in both the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court and in the New York Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Does the requirement that juvenile convictions rest on "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof, as opposed to that stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for In re Winship, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court found that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles alike. The Court noted that by establishing guilt based only on a "preponderance of the evidence," as is customary in civil cases, courts were denying criminal defendants a fundamental constitutional safeguard against the possibility that their fate be incorrectly decided due to fact-finding errors. The Court concluded that mere variations in age among criminal defendants will not suffice to warrant the use of different burdens of proof so long as they all face loss of liberty as a possible sentence.

Debacker v. Brainard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Brainard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Debacker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 28 (1969)

Argued

October 13-14, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, November 12, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brainard, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

In Re Whittington

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

701

Petitioner

In Re Whittington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 341 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, April 2, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for In Re Whittington, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

In re Gault

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:01 +0000

Location

Gila County Youth Detention Center

1425 E. South St Globe AZ 85501

Globe, AZ 85501

United States

33° 23' 36.7476" N, 110° 46' 22.5768" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

116

Appellant

Gault

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Arizona

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 1 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1967

Advocates

Frank A. Parks (Argued the cause for the appellee, pro hac vice, by special leave of the Court)

Norman Dorsen (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Merritt W. Green (Argued the cause for the Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Gault had previously been placed on probation. The police did not leave notice with Gault's parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21.

Question

Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gault, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross- examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self- incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements.

Kent v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

104

Petitioner

Kent

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 541 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1966

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kent, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-712

Petitioner

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

T.L.O.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 1214 (1984)

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None