Know Your Rights. Assert Them.

What the court held

Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. School officials may not suppress student expression unless it materially and substantially disrupts school operations.

How to use this case

Assert when a school punishes you for wearing a symbol, writing an article, or speaking out on a political or social issue. The school must show actual, substantial disruption — not mere discomfort or unpopularity.

What the court held

Juveniles facing delinquency proceedings that may result in confinement have the right to notice of charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. The Constitution does not permit a kangaroo court for children.

How to use this case

Assert in any juvenile delinquency proceeding. If you were denied an attorney, not told the charges against you, or forced to confess without being advised of your rights, Gault is your foundation for challenging the proceeding.

What the court held

The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. Children's diminished culpability, vulnerability to negative influences, and capacity for change make the death penalty a grossly disproportionate punishment.

How to use this case

The direct holding applies to death penalty cases. But the Court's reasoning — that children are categorically less culpable than adults — is the foundation for challenging any sentence that fails to account for the defendant's age at the time of the offense.

What the court held

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life without parole on juvenile offenders who did not commit homicide. The state must give juvenile non-homicide offenders a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

How to use this case

Assert in any case where a juvenile non-homicide offender was sentenced to life without parole, or to a term so long that it is the functional equivalent of life without parole. Graham requires a meaningful opportunity for release — not merely a theoretical one.

What the court held

Mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment. Sentencing courts must consider the mitigating qualities of youth — including immaturity, impetuosity, failure to appreciate risks and consequences, and the capacity for change — before imposing the harshest available sentence.

How to use this case

Assert in any case where a juvenile homicide offender received a mandatory life without parole sentence without individualized consideration of youth-related mitigating factors. Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) made Miller retroactive.

What the court held

Miller v. Alabama announced a substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Prisoners serving mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles are entitled to resentencing under Miller's framework.

How to use this case

If you or someone you know is serving a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime committed as a juvenile, Montgomery entitles them to a resentencing hearing. File a habeas corpus petition in the court of conviction.

What the court held

The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by school officials. However, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student — they need only reasonable suspicion that the search will reveal evidence of a violation of law or school rules. The search must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it.

How to use this case

Assert when a school official searched your person, backpack, locker, or phone without reasonable suspicion. If the search was based on a hunch, an anonymous tip without corroboration, or a desire to make an example, challenge the search and move to suppress any evidence found.

What the court held

A state may not deny free public education to undocumented immigrant children. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to all persons within a state's jurisdiction — not merely to citizens or lawful residents. Denying education to children based on their immigration status imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.

How to use this case

Assert when any child is denied access to public education, public benefits, or public services based on immigration status, national origin, or any other characteristic for which the child bears no personal responsibility.

What the court held

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The doctrine of "separate but equal" established in Plessy v. Ferguson has no place in the field of public education.

How to use this case

The direct holding applies to racial segregation. But Brown's broader principle — that the state cannot impose a badge of inferiority on a class of citizens through its laws — is the foundation for equal protection challenges to any law that treats a group as inherently less worthy of the state's protection.

What the court held

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. The exclusionary rule applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Without this rule, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures would be a form of words, valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties.

How to use this case

Assert in any criminal or delinquency proceeding where evidence was obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. File a motion to suppress before trial. If the court denies the motion, preserve the issue for appeal.

What the court held

Before a custodial interrogation, law enforcement must advise a suspect of the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against them in court, the right to an attorney, and the right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one. Statements obtained in violation of these requirements are inadmissible.

How to use this case

Assert when you were interrogated in custody without being advised of your rights, or when you invoked your right to silence or counsel and questioning continued. Move to suppress any statements made. For juveniles, courts apply heightened scrutiny to the voluntariness of Miranda waivers.

What the court held

Persons who are involuntarily committed to state institutions retain liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the right to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these interests.

How to use this case

Assert under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a person in a state institution — a psychiatric hospital, a developmental center, a nursing home operated under state contract — is subjected to unsafe conditions, unreasonable restraints, or denial of necessary treatment. The standard is professional judgment, not deliberate indifference.

What the court held

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This applies whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs, or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care.

How to use this case

Assert under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a person in any custodial setting — jail, prison, juvenile hall, immigration detention — is denied necessary medical or mental health care. You must show both that the medical need was objectively serious and that the official was subjectively aware of and disregarded the risk.

What the court held

The Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from private violence. However, the Court recognized two exceptions: (1) the special relationship doctrine — when the state takes a person into its custody, it assumes a duty of care; and (2) the state-created danger doctrine — when state action affirmatively places a person in a position of danger.

How to use this case

DeShaney is often cited against plaintiffs, but its exceptions are powerful. Assert the special relationship doctrine when the state had custody of the victim — a child in foster care, a person in a state institution, a detainee. Assert state-created danger when a state official's affirmative action increased the risk of harm.

What the court held

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. The statute applies to individual state actors — police officers, school officials, social workers, prison guards — acting in their official capacity.

How to use this case

File in federal district court. § 1983 is the primary vehicle for constitutional claims against state and local government actors. You must show: (1) the defendant acted under color of state law; (2) the defendant's conduct deprived you of a constitutional or federal statutory right. Qualified immunity may shield individual defendants — focus on the policy or custom when suing a municipality.

What the court held

Local governments — cities, counties, school districts, and other municipal entities — are "persons" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, a municipality may only be held liable when the constitutional violation results from an official policy, custom, or practice of the municipality — not merely from the misconduct of an individual employee.

How to use this case

When suing a city, county, or school district under § 1983, you must identify the specific policy, custom, or practice that caused the violation. This can be a written policy, a widespread informal practice, or a failure to train that amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.

What the court held

The Flores Settlement Agreement establishes a nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of immigrant children in federal custody. The government must release children without unnecessary delay to parents, relatives, or licensed programs; must place detained children in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their age and needs; and must provide detained children with basic standards of care including food, water, sanitation, medical care, and contact with family.

How to use this case

Assert in federal court (file in the Central District of California, which retains jurisdiction over the settlement) when immigrant children in federal custody are denied the rights guaranteed by the Flores Agreement. Organizations including the ACLU and SPLC actively monitor compliance and accept referrals.

What the court held

Federal courts have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of children in state foster care systems, including the right to be free from harm, the right to appropriate placements, and the right to services necessary for reunification or permanent placement. Class action litigation has produced consent decrees requiring systemic reform of state child welfare agencies.

How to use this case

When a state child welfare agency has a pattern or practice of violating children's constitutional or statutory rights — not merely individual errors — federal class action litigation under § 1983 and the Child Welfare Act can compel systemic reform. Contact the National Center for Youth Law or the Children's Rights organization for referrals.

What the court held

When the Legislature amends a statute to reduce the punishment for a criminal offense, the amendment applies retroactively to all cases not yet final on appeal. The Legislature is presumed to have intended the more lenient law to apply to all defendants whose cases are not yet final. This presumption can only be overcome by a clear expression of contrary legislative intent.

How to use this case

Assert in California state court when a law reducing punishment for an offense was enacted after your conviction but before your case became final on appeal. File a supplemental brief on appeal or a petition for resentencing. The doctrine has been extended to non-criminal protective statutes benefiting children.

What the court held

A woman who agreed to conceive children with her same-sex partner through artificial insemination and who actively participated in raising the children is a presumed parent under California's Uniform Parentage Act. Both parents are obligated to support the children regardless of the biological relationship.

How to use this case

Assert in California family court when a non-biological parent who functioned as a parent seeks custody, visitation, or support rights — or when a child seeks support from a non-biological parent who held themselves out as a parent. The principle extends beyond same-sex couples to any parental relationship established by conduct.

What the court held

California juvenile dependency courts have jurisdiction over a child when the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm, neglect, abuse, or exploitation. The court's paramount concern is the child's safety and well-being. Parents have a due process right to notice and a hearing before the court may remove a child from their custody.

How to use this case

In any W&I Code § 300 dependency proceeding, parents have the right to appointed counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to appeal. Children have the right to a guardian ad litem and, in many counties, to their own appointed attorney. Challenge removal orders that are not supported by clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger.