No. 19-1278

Hunter Fussell v. Louisiana

Lower Court: Louisiana
Docketed: 2020-05-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: automatic-transfer child-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process juvenile-justice juvenile-transfer liberty-interest state-statute
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Due Process Clause requires that a child receive an individualized hearing before being placed in criminal court to be tried as an adult

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The transfer of a child from juvenile court to a criminal court is a “critically important action.” Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 (1966). It exposes children to increased prison sentences, placement in an adult prison system, and criminal proceedings for which they are at a “significant disadvantage[.]” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 78 (2010). Multiple courts have held that the Due Process Clause protects children from an arbitrary transfer. Others will give a child due process protections only if a state statute creates a liberty interest for the child to remain in juvenile court. Those courts, however, disagree over when a state creates a liberty interest. The decision below places Louisiana squarely on the most restrictive end of this range by allowing the automatic and irrevocable transfer of a 15-year-old child from the jurisdiction of a juvenile court to a criminal court without due process. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Due Process Clause requires that a child receive an individualized hearing before being placed in criminal court to be tried as an adult. 2. Whether a state statute that places children in the exclusive jurisdiction of its juvenile courts creates a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause.

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-11
Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
2020-05-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 11, 2020)
2020-03-03
Application (19A961) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until April 9, 2020.
2020-02-28
Application (19A961) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 10, 2020 to April 24, 2020, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Hunter Fussell
Adam Hiatt PiersonDLA Piper US LLP, Petitioner
Adam Hiatt PiersonDLA Piper US LLP, Petitioner
Louisiana
Elizabeth Baker MurrillOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Elizabeth Baker MurrillOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent