This page details milestones in juvenile justice—from the establishment of the first juvenile court in the United States to landmark court cases throughout history.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) (Pub. L. No. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.) milestones:
|
View Timeline
Action: July 3, 1899 - Illinois Juvenile Court Act Enacted
Summary: The first juvenile court was founded in Chicago, IL.
Related Link: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/388/Illinois-Supreme-Court-History-Juvenile-Courts/news-detail
Action: July 3, 1899 - Illinois Juvenile Court Act Enacted
Summary: The first juvenile court was founded in Chicago, IL.
Related Link: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/388/Illinois-Supreme-Court-History-Juvenile-Courts/news-detail
Decided: March 21, 1966
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that courts must provide the "essentials of due process" in transferring juveniles to the adult system.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep383/usrep383541/usrep383541.pdf
Decided: March 21, 1966
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that courts must provide the "essentials of due process" in transferring juveniles to the adult system.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep383/usrep383541/usrep383541.pdf
Decided: May 15, 1967
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court found that in cases that could result in incarceration, juveniles have the same due process rights granted adults under the 14th Amendment—with some limits—such as the right to an attorney, to confront witnesses against them, and the right against self-incrimination.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep387/usrep387001/usrep387001.pdf
Decided: May 15, 1967
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court found that in cases that could result in incarceration, juveniles have the same due process rights granted adults under the 14th Amendment—with some limits—such as the right to an attorney, to confront witnesses against them, and the right against self-incrimination.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep387/usrep387001/usrep387001.pdf
Decided: March 31, 1970
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in delinquency matters, the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep397/usrep397358/usrep397358.pdf
Decided: March 31, 1970
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in delinquency matters, the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep397/usrep397358/usrep397358.pdf
Decided: June 21, 1971
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that jury trials are not constitutionally required in juvenile court hearings.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep403/usrep403528/usrep403528.pdf
Decided: June 21, 1971
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that jury trials are not constitutionally required in juvenile court hearings.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep403/usrep403528/usrep403528.pdf
Decided: May 27, 1975
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the waiver of a juvenile to criminal court following adjudication in juvenile court constitutes double jeopardy.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep421/usrep421519/usrep421519.pdf
Decided: May 27, 1975
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the waiver of a juvenile to criminal court following adjudication in juvenile court constitutes double jeopardy.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep421/usrep421519/usrep421519.pdf
Decided: March 7, 1977
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a court order prohibiting the press from publishing the name of a juvenile and photo of a youth involved in a juvenile court proceeding is deemed unconstitutional and an infringement on freedom of the press.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep430/usrep430308/usrep430308.pdf
Decided: March 7, 1977
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a court order prohibiting the press from publishing the name of a juvenile and photo of a youth involved in a juvenile court proceeding is deemed unconstitutional and an infringement on freedom of the press.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep430/usrep430308/usrep430308.pdf
Decided: June 26, 1979
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that news organizations may report on juvenile court proceedings under certain circumstances.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep443/usrep443097/usrep443097.pdf
Decided: June 26, 1979
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that news organizations may report on juvenile court proceedings under certain circumstances.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep443/usrep443097/usrep443097.pdf
Decided: January 19, 1982
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a defendant's youthful age should be considered a mitigating factor in deciding whether to apply the death penalty.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep455/usrep455104/usrep455104.pdf
Decided: January 19, 1982
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a defendant's youthful age should be considered a mitigating factor in deciding whether to apply the death penalty.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep455/usrep455104/usrep455104.pdf
Decided: June 4, 1984
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that preventative "pretrial" detention of juveniles is allowable under certain circumstances.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467253/usrep467253.pdf
Decided: June 4, 1984
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that preventative "pretrial" detention of juveniles is allowable under certain circumstances.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467253/usrep467253.pdf
Decided: June 29, 1988
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that application of the death penalty to those who were 16 or younger at the time of the crime violates the Eighth Amendment.
Related Link: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
Decided: June 29, 1988
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that application of the death penalty to those who were 16 or younger at the time of the crime violates the Eighth Amendment.
Related Link: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
Decided: June 26, 1989
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed at age 16 or 17.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep492/usrep492361/usrep492361.pdf
Decided: June 26, 1989
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed at age 16 or 17.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep492/usrep492361/usrep492361.pdf
Action: December 19, 2002 - Conviction Vacated by the New York Supreme Court
Summary: Following the rape and beating of a female jogger in New York's Central Park in 1989, five Black and Latino boys ages 14–16 were tried for the crime and convicted as adults, despite inconsistent confessions, DNA evidence that excluded them, and no eyewitness accounts. The teens served sentences ranging from 6 to 12 years in prison. On December 19, 2002, a New York Supreme Court justice granted a motion to vacate the convictions after a serial rapist already in prison confessed to the attack; his DNA also matched evidence from the crime scene.
Related Link: https://ia600309.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.240864/gov.uscourts.nysd.240864.37.0.pdf
Action: December 19, 2002 - Conviction Vacated by the New York Supreme Court
Summary: Following the rape and beating of a female jogger in New York's Central Park in 1989, five Black and Latino boys ages 14–16 were tried for the crime and convicted as adults, despite inconsistent confessions, DNA evidence that excluded them, and no eyewitness accounts. The teens served sentences ranging from 6 to 12 years in prison. On December 19, 2002, a New York Supreme Court justice granted a motion to vacate the convictions after a serial rapist already in prison confessed to the attack; his DNA also matched evidence from the crime scene.
Related Link: https://ia600309.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.240864/gov.uscourts.nysd.240864.37.0.pdf
Decided: March 1, 2005
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to impose the death penalty on an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. (The Supreme Court had previously ruled that executing individuals for crimes committed at age 15 or younger violates the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.)
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep543/usrep543551/usrep543551.pdf
Decided: March 1, 2005
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to impose the death penalty on an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. (The Supreme Court had previously ruled that executing individuals for crimes committed at age 15 or younger violates the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.)
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep543/usrep543551/usrep543551.pdf
Decided: May 17, 2010; modified July 6, 2010
Summary: The Supreme Court found that sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth convicted of crimes other than homicide violate the Eighth Amendment.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep560/usrep560048/usrep560048.pdf
Decided: May 17, 2010; modified July 6, 2010
Summary: The Supreme Court found that sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth convicted of crimes other than homicide violate the Eighth Amendment.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep560/usrep560048/usrep560048.pdf
Decided: June 16, 2011
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a youth's age should be taken into consideration when that person is being interrogated while in custody.
Related Link: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-jdb-v-north-carolina
Decided: June 16, 2011
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a youth's age should be taken into consideration when that person is being interrogated while in custody.
Related Link: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-jdb-v-north-carolina
Decided: June 25, 2012
Summary: Ruling in tandem on these two cases, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for children, concluding that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep567/usrep567460/usrep567460.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/10-09647qp.pdf
Decided: June 25, 2012
Summary: Ruling in tandem on these two cases, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for children, concluding that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep567/usrep567460/usrep567460.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/10-09647qp.pdf
Action: April 19, 2013 - Scottsboro Boys Act Signed in Alabama
Summary: Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed legislation paving the way to grant posthumous pardons to a group of Black men convicted as teenagers of raping two white women in Scottsboro, AL, in 1931 – a crime they did not commit. Eight of the nine boys, ages 12-19 at the time of the trial, were convicted and sentenced to death (the death sentences were not carried out). Bentley also signed a resolution formally exonerating the teens. The last of the men died in 1989.
Action: November 21, 2013 - "Scottsboro Boys" Conviction Vacated
Summary: The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles granted posthumous pardons to three of the Black teens wrongfully convicted of the rapes of two white women in 1931.
Related Links: https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/spring/scottsboro.pdf
Norris v. Alabama: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep294/usrep294587/usrep294587.pdf
Patterson v. Alabama: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep294/usrep294600/usrep294600.pdf
https://www.legislature.state.al.us/legacy/CodeOfAlabama/1975/15-22-114.htm
Action: April 19, 2013 - Scottsboro Boys Act Signed in Alabama
Summary: Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed legislation paving the way to grant posthumous pardons to a group of Black men convicted as teenagers of raping two white women in Scottsboro, AL, in 1931 – a crime they did not commit. Eight of the nine boys, ages 12-19 at the time of the trial, were convicted and sentenced to death (the death sentences were not carried out). Bentley also signed a resolution formally exonerating the teens. The last of the men died in 1989.
Action: November 21, 2013 - "Scottsboro Boys" Conviction Vacated
Summary: The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles granted posthumous pardons to three of the Black teens wrongfully convicted of the rapes of two white women in 1931.
Related Links: https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/spring/scottsboro.pdf
Norris v. Alabama: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep294/usrep294587/usrep294587.pdf
Patterson v. Alabama: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep294/usrep294600/usrep294600.pdf
https://www.legislature.state.al.us/legacy/CodeOfAlabama/1975/15-22-114.htm
Action: December 16, 2014 - Conviction Vacated
Summary: On June 16, 1944, George Stinney, Jr., 14, was executed for the murder of two white girls in South Carolina. Police claimed that Stinney, who was Black, confessed to killings, although no written statement was presented at trial. The alleged confession represented the only evidence presented at trial. A South Carolina judge vacated Stinney's murder conviction, ruling he was denied due process. The judge found that Stinney was fundamentally deprived of due process throughout the proceedings against him, that the alleged confession "simply cannot be said to be known and voluntary," and that the court-appointed attorney "did little to nothing" to defend Stinney.
Related Link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1382796/stinney-ruling.pdf
Action: December 16, 2014 - Conviction Vacated
Summary: On June 16, 1944, George Stinney, Jr., 14, was executed for the murder of two white girls in South Carolina. Police claimed that Stinney, who was Black, confessed to killings, although no written statement was presented at trial. The alleged confession represented the only evidence presented at trial. A South Carolina judge vacated Stinney's murder conviction, ruling he was denied due process. The judge found that Stinney was fundamentally deprived of due process throughout the proceedings against him, that the alleged confession "simply cannot be said to be known and voluntary," and that the court-appointed attorney "did little to nothing" to defend Stinney.
Related Link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1382796/stinney-ruling.pdf
Decided: January 25, 2016
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its 2012 decision abolishing mandatory life-without-parole sentences for youth—which stated that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment—should be applied retroactively.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2015/14-280_f204.pdf
Decided: January 25, 2016
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its 2012 decision abolishing mandatory life-without-parole sentences for youth—which stated that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment—should be applied retroactively.
Related Links: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2015/14-280_f204.pdf
Decided: April 22, 2021
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Miller v. Alabama, but allowed states the discretion to sentence juvenile offenders to life without parole without having to make a separate assessment on incorrigibility.
Related Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-1259_8njq.pdf
Decided: April 22, 2021
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Miller v. Alabama, but allowed states the discretion to sentence juvenile offenders to life without parole without having to make a separate assessment on incorrigibility.
Related Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-1259_8njq.pdf