Press Releases
about Juvenile Justice

This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy’s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites’ civil liberties.

In 2020, in Held v. Montana, sixteen youth plaintiffs challenged Montana’s energy policy as violating the Montana Constitution. After several years of litigation, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. In January 2026, Montana youth filed a second case, Held II, to enforce the Court’s decision after the Legislature enacted new laws that the plaintiffs contend undermine the constitutional protections recognized in the Court’s earlier decision and permit continued approval of fossil fuel projects that worsen climate harms. The State moved to transfer Held II to a different district under SB 97, a law that gives the government a special right to forum shop in cases challenging new laws and makes it significantly harder for Montanans to pursue such challenges. SB 97 thus raises serious access-to-justice concerns in this case and any others in which people are seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional laws.

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 ACLU of 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.