Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

B.J.S., a Native American born in 2004, was charged with multiple acts of aggravated sexual abuse against his younger sister L.S. between August 2019 and June 2022, when he was 15 to 17 years old. The government filed a juvenile information and moved to transfer the proceedings to adult court. The charges included causing L.S. to engage in sexual acts by force, engaging in sexual acts with L.S. under 12, and causing sexual contact with L.S. under 12 with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse sexual desire.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted the government's motion to transfer the case to adult court. B.J.S. moved to dismiss the transfer motion, arguing that the charges did not qualify as "crimes of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 5032. The district court denied his motion and granted the transfer after an evidentiary hearing. B.J.S. appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2241(c), and 2244(a)(5) did not qualify as "crimes of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). The court applied the categorical approach, considering only the statutory elements of the offenses. It found that § 2241(a) was overbroad and indivisible, covering more conduct than § 16(a). Similarly, § 2241(c) and § 2244(a)(5) did not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. Consequently, the court concluded that none of the charges met the definition of a "crime of violence" for purposes of § 5032 permissive transfer.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case, determining that the transfer to adult court was not justified. View "United States v. B.J.S." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment in a suit against employees of a juvenile home, concluding that the district court erred by holding as a matter of law that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by housing him in prolonged solitary confinement, failing to educate him, and allowing him to be sexually abused. In this case, the district court addressed only the fact of juvenile court supervision in determining that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and its opinion did not contain sufficient detail to allow the court to review whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Bradford v. Avery" on Justia Law

Defendant, originally adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for assault of a federal officer, appealed the district court's imposition of a combination of official detention and juvenile delinquent supervision following revocation of his prior supervision term. Defendant argues that the total combined term of detention and supervision exceeds the maximum possible term under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. 5031 et seq. The court agreed and held that the maximum term of supervision that a court may impose under section 5037(d)(6) is determined by the requirements in section 5037(d)(2), using the juvenile's age at the time of the revocation hearing. As a result, the maximum total period of detention and supervision that may be imposed upon revocation of a previously imposed term of supervision for a juvenile who is under age 21 at the time of revocation is (i) 3 years, (ii) the top of the Guidelines range that would have applied to a similarly situated adult defendant unless the court finds an aggravating factor to warrant an upward departure, or (iii) the maximum term of imprisonment that would be authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an adult, whichever is least, "less the term of official detention ordered." Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "United States v. E.T.H." on Justia Law