The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized developmental research in a number of cases where the Court held that children necessitate different treatment due to their adolescence. In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court acknowledged for the first time scientific and sociological studies that confirm that young people have a lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, and that they are more vulnerable and susceptible to peer pressure compared to adults. Accordingly, the Court held that developmental science behind adolescence must be used as a mitigating factor. Subsequently, the Court continued to rely on developmental research to support rulings that children must be treated differently than adults: Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010), J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016).

The National Academy of Sciences released a report in 2013 that reviews advances in behavioral and neuroscience research and connects the research with the need for youth justice reform. The report calls for the implementation of reform through a developmental lens and has been critical in pushing for the incorporation of adolescent development research in the juvenile legal system. In addition, several studies have been published that examine the implications of adolescent development for young people facing juvenile court, ranging from their susceptibility to peer influences to their cognitive development in understanding waivers. For a list of a pertinent studies, please go to [insert hyperlink on resources for child and adolescent development studies, if possible – https://www.defendyouthrights.org/practice-policy-resources/child-adolescent-development-studies/]

The Department of Justice issued a Statement of Interest in a civil lawsuit, Kenny v. Wilson, regarding the constitutionality of vague school-based offenses. In recognition of adolescent development research, the DOJ asserted “student behavior is often a natural outgrowth of children’s diminished maturity and their lack of experience, perspective, and judgment.” Accordingly, the DOJ called for increased protections around the disproportionate criminalization of children’s developmentally appropriate behavior—essentially arguing that we need to let kids be kids.