First Page
241
Last Page
292
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Recently, juvenile justice reformers have had great success in expanding the reach of the juvenile court. Over the last two decades, many states have raised their age of majority, bringing older teens and young adults under the jurisdictional umbrella of the juvenile court. Likewise, many states have amended their transfer statutes, making transferring juveniles from juvenile court to adult criminal court more difficult. The success of these reforms is largely due to the relentless work of dedicated juvenile justice advocates and scholars. The “raise-the-age” movement and work to limit juvenile transfers has undoubtedly helped to retain more youthful offenders within the juvenile court system and its rehabilitative regime. Unfortunately, these efforts fail to address an area of juvenile justice ripe for reform: the method by which states determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. To fall within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, a person must be below the statutorily proscribed age of majority, often eighteen years old, at the time of the alleged offense. However, a jurisdictional issue arises when a person is below the age of majority at the time of the alleged offense but has reached or exceeded the age of majority by the time legal proceedings are instituted against them. In such a situation, some states use the age at the time of the offense, while others use the age at the time of proceedings to determine whether the juvenile falls within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Under the latter jurisdictional scheme, juveniles who have reached or exceeded the age of majority by the time proceedings are initiated are processed in adult criminal court. These juveniles, who are often only young adults at the time of proceedings, lose all the benefits and protections of juvenile court despite having been juveniles at the time of the alleged offense. The collateral consequences of an adult criminal court prosecution for juveniles who have “aged out” of juvenile court jurisdiction are severe, including increased rates of recidivism, sexual victimization and suicidal tendencies in adult correctional facilities, and long-term unemployment and poverty. The impact of these consequences ripple through our country, decreasing the nation’s public safety, public health, and economic stability. The consequences to both “aged out” juveniles and the nation warrant a national response. Thus far, little popular and scholarly attention has been given to this juvenile court jurisdictional issue. Accordingly, this Article makes several contributions to existing juvenile justice scholarship. First, it addresses an under-discussed area of the juvenile justice system in need of reform. Second, it builds upon the existing scholarly work that sets forth the collateral consequences associated with prosecuting young adults in adult criminal court and expressly articulates their broader national impact. Finally, it argues Congress can and should use its Spending Clause power to incentivize state action. Specifically, it urges Congress to attach a condition—the use of a juvenile’s age at the time of the offense to determine the juvenile court’s jurisdiction—to states’ receipt of certain federal funds.
Recommended Citation
Erin Fitzgerald
Calling on Congress: Use the Spending Clause to Keep Juveniles in Juvenile Court,
52 Pepp. L. Rev.
241
(2025)
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol52/iss2/1
