Policy Advocacy

Merrick v. Inmate Legal Services 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2016)

Supervised by clinic staff, students in the Civil Rights & Amicus Clinic represented Mr. Merrick in his appeal of his § 1983 claim alleging that Inmate Legal Services violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts when it failed to file his pro se motion for reconsideration of his criminal appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals, as well as his claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Read the Opening Brief of Appellant
Read the Appellant's Reply Brief

PRP of Miller

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2021)

In 2017, the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Houston-Sconiers affirmed that “children are different” and criminal sentencing must take into account the mitigating qualities of youth at sentencing, and must have complete discretion to impose a lesser sentence. That decision was held to be retroactive, prompting Asaria Miller to file a personal restraint petition seeking resentencing. Ms. Miller, who is Black, was sentenced to over 30 years of incarceration for a crime she participated in at the age of 16 . The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Miller before the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing that race operates as a silent aggravator, which often leads Black children to be perceived as adult-like and more likely to receive harsher penalties. The Court of Appeals granted Ms. Miller’s request for resentencing, and adopted amicus’s argument that sentencing courts be required to consider adultification bias whenever sentencing a youth of color.

PRP of Keonte Smith

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Court of Appeals in Personal Restraint of Keonte Smith, providing empirical studies on adultification of Black children and arguing for explicit consideration of adultification bias when juvenile courts decline jurisdiction of children to adult court for prosecution, as well as during sentencing. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

State v. J.W.M.

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. JWM involves the imposition of a lengthy period of incarceration on a young person of color based on purported treatment needs as well as criminal history. The amicus brief submitted by the Korematsu Center discusses literature regarding adultification of Black youth and other youth of color and asks the Court to direct juvenile courts to account for adultification bias in their disposition decisions. The brief also educated the Court about the harms of incarcerating young people and requested that the harms of incarceration be considered as a non-statutory mitigating factor in any case where a period of incarceration is requested. In its opinion, the Court noted agreement with amici regarding how racial bias can impact sentencing decisions and noted that courts must base manifest injustice dispositions on juvenile offenders’ serious and clear danger to society, not on their need for treatment services. The Korematsu Center partnered with King County of Public Defense and TeamChild on the brief, and represented CHOOSE180 and Creative Justice as amici. 

Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 

Supreme Court of the US (2017)

Professor Charlotte Garden, along with co-counsel, submitted a brief on behalf of a group of labor economists and social scientists. This case is about whether job applicants may bring disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the brief uses social science evidence to show that older job-seekers fare much worse than their younger counterparts in finding work, placing them at risk of poverty. The brief explains that the ability to bring a disparate impact claim could help fight age discrimination in hiring - much as it has helped fight race and sex discrimination - and that Congress was aiming to take on the problem of age discrimination in hiring when it enacted the ADEA.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

State v. Lares-Storms

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III (2017)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Lares-Storms, providing the court with empirical literature demonstrating that drug-detection dogs are often unreliable, that drug-detection dogs are influenced by their handlers, and that dog sniff searches of racial minorities produce disproportionately high false positives when compared to dog sniffs of whites. The Center argued that this empirical literature raises important policy considerations that should lead Washington courts to require a warrant before conducting a dog sniff search of a vehicle.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Lares-Storms

EEOC v. Evans Fruit Co., Inc.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2014)

Students in the Civil Rights Amicus Clinic case assisted the Center in filing an amicus brief supporting plaintiff-intervenor Latina farmworkers' request for a new trial based on improper racialization of the case, and specifically educating the court about the dangers of implicit in-group favoritism that could have manifested between the all-white jury and the white owners of the defendant corporation. The Center represented Asian Bar Association of Washington, Latina/o Bar Association of Washington, Loren Miller Bar Association, South Asian Bar Association of Washington, and Vietnamese American Bar Association of Washington as amici curiae.

Read the Center's amicus brief in EEOC v. Evans Fruit

King County Civil Rights 

King County Council (2019 - 2024)

Professor Melissa Lee’s research, recommendations, and testimony formed the backbone of an ordinance adopted in June that established a Human and Civil Rights Commission.

PRP of Rufus Williams

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Personal Restraint Petition of Mr. Williams before the Washington Supreme Court supporting Mr. Williams’s request for a more protective standard for conditions of confinement under the state constitution’s analogue to the Eighth Amendment. The brief presented information that Black people, especially Black men, are overrepresented in prison populations and are consequentially disproportionally exposed to COVID-19. Additionally, Black overrepresentation is a product of structural racism and must inform how cruel punishment is assessed.

State v. Jackson

WA Supreme Court (2021)

Mr. Jackson was subject to being shackled and restrained at his trial without an individualized hearing, where he was convicted. The case was appealed on the grounds that the trial court violated Mr. Jackson’s constitutional rights as the restraints threatened a fair trial. The Korematsu Center’s amicus brief supported Mr. Jackson’s appeal and conveyed to the Washington Supreme Court that courts uniformly recognize prejudice occurs when a defendant is shackled in front of the jury and that empirical literature suggests that judges have the same bias as juries. Additionally, the brief urged the court that it should clarify that shackling without an individualized hearing requires the state to prove that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that it was a constitutional error for Mr. Jackson not to have an individualized hearing and changed the harmless error test to that the state must show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Bagby 

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in State v. Bagby, which presented the issue of whether the prosecutor’s repeated references to Mr. Bagby’s “nationality” constituted race-based prosecutorial misconduct. The amicus brief highlighted how racially coded language can animate racial prejudice, and advocated for the adoption of the objective observer standard to establish whether race-based prosecutorial misconduct occurred. The brief also argued for a per se prejudice rule in cases of race-based prosecutorial misconduct. The Washington Supreme Court adopted the arguments of amicus arguments and vacated Mr. Bagby’s conviction. 

State v. Sum

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center joined and collaborated on key strategy for a brief with the King County Department of Public Defense, the ACLU-WA, and the Washington Defender Association supporting Mr. Sum's appeal. In Mr. Sum’s case, the Washington Supreme Court’s holding changed the constitutional test for the seizure to include whether an objective observer could view race as a factor in whether a person accused perceived themselves seized per the State Constitution. The Center’s amicus brief highlighted the need to consider the BIPOC experience with law enforcement in determining whether an individual would feel free to leave an encounter with law enforcement and argued for the adoption of the objective observer standard to effectuate this change. 

State v. Zamora

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court in support of Mr. Zamora’s appeal after he was convicted of assault of two police officers. Mr. Zamora appealed the conviction because his constitutional rights were violated because the prosecutor appealed to jurors’ potential racial bias during voir dire by repeatedly making references to illegal immigration and its connection to safety concerns. The brief urged the court to adopt more structural efforts and GR 37’s objective observer in light of race-based prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that “race-based prosecutorial misconduct necessarily results in incurable prejudice and thus cannot be deemed harmless…State-sanctioned invocation of racial or ethnic bias in the justice system is unacceptable.” The court reversed and vacated Mr. Zamora’s conviction. The ACLU-WA, King County Department of Public Defense, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, OneAmerica, Public Defender Association, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association joined.

State v. Gates

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The ACLU-WA and the Korematsu Center co-wrote an amicus brief filed in the Washington Supreme Court supporting Mr. Gates.  In Mr. Gates’s case, issues of race-based prosecutorial misconduct and privacy issues were raised. The brief argued that review should be granted because the case presented significant questions of constitutional law and public interest of privacy when Mr. Gates was recorded as a passenger of a ride-share driver.

PRP of Deshawn Anderson

WA Supreme Court (2024)

Not Yet Filed 

 

State v. Allen

WA Supreme Court (2012)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner's argument that he was entitled to a jury instruction addressing the unreliability of cross-racial identifications, and explaining how the unreliability contributes to racial disproportionality in Washington's criminal justice system. The Center represented the Loren Miller Bar Association of Washington and the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington as amici curiae.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Allen

Colvin v. Inslee 

WA Supreme Court (2020)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief supporting incarcerated individuals in their Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Washington State Supreme Court seeking the release of those in DOC custody during the public health crisis that was the COVID-19 pandemic. The brief supported the petition by situating Washington in the national context of that time, providing additional context for the potential consequences of failing to grant the petitioners’ request, and asserting that entry of the writ was justified due to violations of the stat constitutional guarantee against cruel punishment. The ACLU-WA, the Public Defender Association, and the Washington Innocence Project joined.

PRP of Brooks

WA Supreme Court (2020)

In re Personal Restraint of Brooks asked whether Washington State’s Miller fix statute, which ensures that courts sentencing young people prosecuted in adult court consider the mitigating qualities of youth when fashioning punishment, applied to Carl Brooks, who was sentenced as a juvenile under an earlier sentencing scheme. The Korematsu Center, joined by the ACLU of Washington, Columbia Legal Services, Juvenile Law Center, King County Department of Public Defense, National Juvenile Defender Center, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Washington Defender Association, filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court arguing that both racial justice and the principle that “children are different” supported a ruling that the Miller fix statute applied to Mr. Brooks’s life-equivalent sentence. In an en banc ruling, the Court held that it did.  

PRP of Domingo-Cornelio / PRP of Ali

WA Supreme Court (2020)

This pair of cases asked whether young people who were sentenced in adult court prior to the implementation of new sentencing rules and without consideration for the mitigating factors of their youth should be entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Korematsu Center, joined by Washington Defender Association, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys filed an amicus brief with the Washington Supreme Court arguing that a post-conviction petitioner establishes prejudice where the judge’s discretion was limited by now-inapplicable sentencing provisions. The brief further argues that the post Houston-Sconiers mandate that a court “must” consider the “mitigating circumstances related to the defendant's youth” constitutes a significant and material change in the law and that Mr. Domingo-Cornelio and Mr. Ali were each entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Court held that Houston-Sconiers did constitute a significant and material change in the law, and requires retroactive application.

PRP of Rufus Williams

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Personal Restraint Petition of Mr. Williams before the Washington Supreme Court supporting Mr. Williams’s request for a more protective standard for conditions of confinement under the state constitution’s analogue to the Eighth Amendment. The brief presented information that Black people, especially Black men, are overrepresented in prison populations and are consequentially disproportionally exposed to COVID-19. Additionally, Black overrepresentation is a product of structural racism and must inform how cruel punishment is assessed.

PRP of Miller

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2021)

Case Summary: In 2017, the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Houston-Sconiers affirmed that “children are different” and criminal sentencing must take into account the mitigating qualities of youth at sentencing, and must have complete discretion to impose a lesser sentence. That decision was held to be retroactive, prompting Asaria Miller to file a personal restraint petition seeking resentencing. Ms. Miller, who is Black, was sentenced to over 30 years of incarceration for a crime she participated in at the age of 16 . The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Miller before the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing that race operates as a silent aggravator, which often leads Black children to be perceived as adult-like and more likely to receive harsher penalties. The Court of Appeals granted Ms. Miller’s request for resentencing, and adopted amicus’s argument that sentencing courts be required to consider adultification bias whenever sentencing a youth of color.

PRP of Carter Vincent/ PRP of Vincent 

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Vincent, who was seeking resentencing pursuant to the change in the law regarding juvenile sentencing after being sentenced as an adult when he was a juvenile. The brief argued to the court that a conclusive presumption of prejudice exists when a sentencing court fails to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and to use actual and substantial prejudice standard is improper because it could cause unguided speculation, opening the door to arbitrary results. The ACLU-WA and the Washington Defender Association joined.

PRP of Keonte Smith

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Court of Appeals in Personal Restraint of Keonte Smith, providing empirical studies on adultification of Black children and arguing for explicit consideration of adultification bias when juvenile courts decline jurisdiction of children to adult court for prosecution, as well as during sentencing. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

State v. Tonelli Anderson

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Anderson involved the imposition of a de facto life sentence for a crime Mr. Anderson committed as a child. Mr. Anderson moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision upholding the de facto life sentence and the Korematsu Center filed an amicus motion to the Washington Supreme Court in support of reconsideration explaining how the Court’s articulation of the state constitutional inquiry improperly narrows what must be considered under Miller v. Alabama and other Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The Korematsu Center were joined on the brief by Juvenile Law Center and represented Huy as amicus.

PRP of Inda

WA Court of Appeals (2023)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, are providing direct representation to Mr. Inda in a post-conviction case before the Court of Appeals, challenging the racially biased application of the discretionary decline statute, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and challenging the adult sentence as substantively disproportionate, given that Mr. Inda was just 15 at the time of the alleged offense.

State v. Sisouvanh 

Washington Supreme Court

The amicus brief, prepared by counsel from Fenwick & West, representing The Korematsu Center, and joined by OneAmerica, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Asian Counseling & Referral Service, Korean American Bar Association of WA, Middle Eastern Legal Association of Washington, and Dr. Daryl Fujii as amici curiae, drew from medicine and mental health fields to offer an evidence-based approach to understanding that cultural competence must be ensured when court-appointed mental health professionals assess an individual's competency to stand trial.

Read the amicus brief in State v. Sisouvanh

State v. A.K.  

King County Superior Court (2021)

Center faculty consulted with counsel for A.K. on the constitutionality of the auto-decline statute, which divests the juvenile court of jurisdiction for 16 and 17 years olds charged with certain serious crimes. Center faculty drafted a state constitutional challenge to the statute based on due process, equal protection, and cruel punishment which was filed in the trial court.

Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 

Supreme Court of the US (2017)

Professor Charlotte Garden, along with co-counsel, submitted a brief on behalf of a group of labor economists and social scientists. This case is about whether job applicants may bring disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the brief uses social science evidence to show that older job-seekers fare much worse than their younger counterparts in finding work, placing them at risk of poverty. The brief explains that the ability to bring a disparate impact claim could help fight age discrimination in hiring - much as it has helped fight race and sex discrimination - and that Congress was aiming to take on the problem of age discrimination in hiring when it enacted the ADEA.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Brothers Dairy, Inc.

WA Supreme Court (2019)

In 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against DeRuyter Brothers Dairy, Inc., the Washington State Dairy Federation, and the Washington Farm Bureau. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the agricultural worker exemption of overtime pay required in the Washington Minimum Wage Act. The Court held the exemption violated the privileges and immunities clause of Art I, Sec. 12 of the Washington state constitution. The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington Supreme Court arguing that the challenge to the Minimum Wage Act not only violated the privileges and immunities clause, but also the state equal protection clause, because the exemption disparately impacted Latine farmworkers.

State of Washington v. City of Sunnyside 

WA Supreme Court (2023)

The Korematsu Center joined the Fair Housing Center of Washington as amici before the Washington State Supreme Court in State of Washington v. City of Sunnyside, et al., in a case brought by the Wing Luke Civil Rights Unit of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office that challenges Sunnyside’s Crime Free Rental Housing Program. The amicus brief provides additional doctrinal and empirical support for proper analysis of the State’s claims under the disparate impact provisions of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Vest Voice v. Hobbs 

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The Vet Voice Foundation et al. brought suit against the Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and other state officials to challenge Washington’s signature verification statute, which disparately impacts protected classes of voters. The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in  the Washington State Supreme Court, urging the Court to adapt reasonable grounds scrutiny to address claims of interference with free exercise of the right to vote under Article I, section  19 of the state constitution.

 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar, M.D.

United States Supreme Court (2013)

This was a Civil Rights Amicus Clinic brief asking the Court to safeguard the anti-retaliation protections of Title VII for employees who report discrimination. The Center represented the Committee of Interns and Residents SEIU, Doctors Council SEIU, and Korean American Medical Association as amici curiae.

Read the Center's amicus brief in UTSWMC v. Nassar

In re Dependency of S.K-P. 

WA Supreme Court (2018)

The Korematsu Center submitted a brief supporting S.K-P.'s argument that article I, section 3 of the Washington constitution should guarantee counsel to children in dependency proceedings. The Center argued that because no federal precedent exists on the question of whether children in dependency proceedings are entitled to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment, a Gunwall analysis is not required to apply article I, section 3 in the case. The Center alternatively argued that if a Gunwall analysis is necessary, notwithstanding the absence of federal law on point, the court's interpretation of article I, section 3 should be properly contexualized in a long-standing body of state constitutional law, state common law, and state statutory law designed to protect the interests of children in the deprivation context.

Read the Center's amicus brief In re Dependency of S.K-P.

M.G. v. Yakima School District

WA Supreme Court (2023)

Yakima School District No. 7 placed M.G., a high school student, into long-term suspension without proper process and provided him an online program that did not meet his educational needs. The Korematsu Center joined the amicus brief of ACLU-WA filed before the Washington Supreme Court arguing that M.G.’s enrollment in an online program violated his right to education and due process under the Washington constitution, and that the process invited racial bias against M.G. The Washington Supreme Court held that M.G.’s right to due process was violated, and he was entitled to return to his regular educational setting.

State v. Garcia-Bueno 

WA Supreme Court (2012)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief educating the court about the importance of effective legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of crimes, after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, and urging the court to give firm guidance that plea colloquies and forms cannot substitute for effective assistance of counsel.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Garcia-Bueno

 

Arce v. Huppenthal

Arizona Federal District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2017)

The Korematsu Center, along with co-counsel, represents high school students in the Tuscon Unified School District (TUSD) in their challenge of the enforcement of A.R.S. § 15-112, which prohibits courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed for pupils of a particular ethnic group, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treatment of pupils as individuals. Enforcement of this statute led to the elimination of the highly successful Mexican American Studies (MAS) program in the TUSD as well as the removal of books illuminating Mexican American history and perspectives from TUSD classrooms. A group of teachers and students challenged the constitutionality of the law based on the first and fourteenth amendments, and, after a successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, prevailed at trial on the equal protection claims before the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima in June and July 2017. For more information on case, please visit the Read the news article.

Read the Opening Brief of Appellant
Read the Appellant's Reply Brief

PRP of Keonte Smith

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Court of Appeals in Personal Restraint of Keonte Smith, providing empirical studies on adultification of Black children and arguing for explicit consideration of adultification bias when juvenile courts decline jurisdiction of children to adult court for prosecution, as well as during sentencing. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

PRP of Inda

WA Court of Appeals (2023)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, are providing direct representation to Mr. Inda in a post-conviction case before the Court of Appeals, challenging the racially biased application of the discretionary decline statute, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and challenging the adult sentence as substantively disproportionate, given that Mr. Inda was just 15 at the time of the alleged offense.

People v. Joseph Bridgeforth 

New York Court of Appeals (2016)

The Korematsu Center was joined by 19 organizations and 32 law school professors in filing an amicus brief with the New York Court of Appeals addressing color discrimination in jury selection. The Appellant in this case asserted that the prosecutor improperly used his peremptory strikes to exclude all dark-skinned women from the jury. Despite the prosecutor's failure to offer an explanation for striking one of the jurors, a dark-skinned Indian-American woman, both the trial court and the intermediate appellate court upheld the strike. The intermediate appeals court found that the Appellant failed to establish that the prosecutor struck this prospective juror because she was a member of a "constitutionally cognizable class." The amicus brief urged the Court to recognize that excluding an individual from jury service based on the color of her skin violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and New York Constitutions.

Read the press release.
Read the Center's amicus brief in People v. Bridgeforth.

Elhady v. Kable 

Fourth Circuit (2020)

In Elhady. v. Kable, individuals whose names had been entered in the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), and who were routinely subjected to additional inspections at airports, brought civil rights action for alleged violation of their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. The Korematsu Center, along with counsel from Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, filed an amicus brief before the Fourth Circuit arguing that the implementation of the TSDB impermissibly burdens plaintiffs' right to travel and therefore urged that the decision of the district court be affirmed. The brief provided historical context by reminding the court of the “grave wrong” which occurred as a result of executive overreach, perpetuated by similar arguments used to justify Japanese incarceration in Korematsu v. United States.

Fair Housing Center of Washington v. Breir-Scheetz Properties, LLC et al.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2018)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit supporting the Fair Housing Center of Washington (FHCW). FHCW prevailed at trial by establishing that the defendant-landlord's occupancy restrictions had a disparate impact on families and thus constituted housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. The Korematsu Center's brief provided historical context demonstrating that occupancy restrictions have had, and continue to have, a disproportionate impact on families of color. It also asked the court to affirm the award of punitive damages, arguing that their deterrent effect is as important in disparate impact cases as it is in cases of intentional discrimination.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Fair Housing Center of WA v. Breir-Scheetz Properties, LLC et al.

Yim v. City of Seattle 

US District Court for the Western District of WA (2018)

The Korematsu Center, joined by ACLU-WA, submitted an amicus brief in support of the City of Seattle, in a challenge to the City's Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which prevents landlords from inquiring about criminal records in screening prospective tenants. The brief explained how the Ordinance is an important step in removing an artificial, arbitrary and unnecessary barrier to housing that has disparately impacted people of color, where there is a long history of race discrimination in the housing markets and where the criminal justice system disproportionately affects people of color.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Yim v. City of Seattle

Yim v. City of Seattle 

Ninth Circuit (2022)

Landlords and their trade association sued the City of Seattle, alleging Seattle’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance violated their First Amendment and due process rights by prohibiting them from inquiring about criminal history of current or potential tenants.  The Korematsu Center, joined by Pioneer Human Services, Tenants Union of Washington, and ACLU of Washington, filed an amicus brief both in federal trial court and before the Ninth Circuit, urging that the courts uphold the ordinance on the basis that, in light of the history of racist housing policies and the current housing crisis, the City acted responsibly to eliminate an arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary barrier to individuals and families seeking fair access to housing.

Turner v. Stime

WA Court of Appeals (2009)

On September 11, 2009, the Korematsu Center filed its first amicus brief in the case of Turner v. Stime, a medical malpractice case in which jurors, during deliberations, made comments about plaintiff's counsel's race, referring to him, a Japanese American, as "Mr. Miyagi" and "Mr. Kamikaze." The Center represented the Asian Bar Association of Washington, South Asian Bar Association of Washington, and Washington Women Lawyers as amici curiae. Read the Turner v. Stime brief.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Turner v. Stime

State v. Gregory 

WA Supreme Court (2016)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief arguing that Washington's death penalty statute is unconstitutional under both the Washington and federal constitutions, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. The Center argued that Mr. Gregory's statistical evidence of racial disproportionality in the imposition of the death penalty in Washington provided the Court a basis on which to revisit the constitutionality of the statute. The Center also discussed the extra-legal factors such as racial bias that continue to influence the administration of the death penalty. The brief explained that while aversive racism may negatively affects Black defendants, making them less likely to receive mercy (or discretionary leniency) from a jury, an equally important explanation for racial disproportionality is that in-group favoritism may positively affect White defendants, making them more likely to receive mercy.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Gregory

City of Seattle v. Erickson 

WA State Supreme Court (2017)

The Korematsu Center consulted with merits counsel on the merits briefing, advocating a bright-line rule that when the last potential juror of a cognizable racial or ethnic group is excused, a prima facie violation under Batson v. Kentucky is established. The Court adopted the bright line rule.

Read the Court's opinion

State of North Carolina v. Bennett & State of North Carolina v. Hobbs 

Supreme Court of North Carolina (2019)

In two consolidated cases before the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the Korematsu Center submitted amicus briefing explaining the steps the Washington Supreme Court had taken to remedy the problem of racially biased jury selection, and encouraging the Supreme Court of North Carolina to pursue a similar course.

Read the Bennett amicus brief here.

Read the Hobbs amicus brief here.

State v. Pierce & Bienhoff

WA Supreme Court (2019)

The Korematsu Center submitted an amicus brief in a case challenging a peremptory strike of a juror of color under the new standard adopted in State v. Jefferson, which asks "whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory strike." The brief explained how the reasons offered to justify the peremptory strike in this case disproportionately impact jurors of color. The ACLU-WA, the Washington Defender Association, and the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined with the Center as amici.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Pierce & Bienhoff

 

State of Louisiana v. Dacarius Holliday 

Supreme Court of Louisiana (2019)

In this death penalty appeal, the Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief urging the Court to recognize the importance of adequate representation of Black men in the jury venire. The unique experience of Black men in America, both historically and currently, qualifies them as a distinct group under Duren v. Missouri. The brief also presented empirical analyses of capital cases demonstrating that more diverse juries engage in a more robust and accountable deliberative process; some of these studies also revealed that the presence of even one Black man on a Black capital defendant's jury decreases the likelihood of a death sentence.

Read our Center's amicus brief in State of Louisiana v. Dacarius Holliday

State v. Rivers 

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center submitted an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Rivers. Mr. Rivers asks the Court to ensure that people accused of crimes have an effective way, under our state constitution, to challenge a jury venire that is not representative of a fair cross section of their community. The amicus brief explains that an effective remedial approach to fair cross section claims under our state constitution (1) will help counteract our country’s racist history of excluding Black people from jury service; (2) is a principled development of this Court’s anti-discrimination jurisprudence that accounts for the operation of systemic racism; and (3) recognizes important empirical evidence that diverse juries engage in a more thorough—and more fair—deliberative process. King County of Department of Public Defense and Public Defender Association joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

State v. Meneese

WA Supreme Court (2011)

In December 2011, the Center filed an amicus brief arguing that a police officer's search of a student on school grounds must be measured by the same standards as police officer searches elsewhere, not a lower standard that applies to searches by school principals and teachers. The brief assert that juveniles of color are particularly impacted by violations of rights within the criminal justice system. 

State v. Solis-Diaz

WA Court of Appeals (2011)

The Center's amicus brief argued that it is unconstitutional to sentence a 16-year-old to jail for 92-1/2 years for a non-homicide offense, discussing scientific support for the conclusion that juveniles, by virtue of brain development, are less culpable and more capable of redemption than adult offenders. The Center represented the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington and the Loren Miller Bar Association as amici curiae.

In re Collier; State of Missouri ex rel Griffin; In re McElroy; State of Missouri ex rel Lockhart 

Supreme Court of Missouri (2014)

In four consolidated cases, the Korematsu Center filed amicus briefs supporting juvenile defendants, setting forth medical research that youth offenders under age 18 are categorically different from adult offenders with regard to culpability, susceptibility to deterrence, vulnerability to peer pressure, and capacity to change, and arguing that all four juveniles be resentenced according to the considerations set forth in Miller v. Alabama.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Collier, et al

Williams v. Steele

Supreme Court of the United States (2016)

The Korematsu Center, along with co-counsel The Phillips Black Project, filed an amicus brief in support of petitioner Michael Williams arguing that Missouri's parole procedures do not adequately provide individualized consideration of a defendant's youth and a meaningful opportunity for children to obtain release as required by Miller v. Alabama. The Center emphasized that state parole boards with very limited procedural guarantees and political decision makers with functionally unlimited discretion create a sham process to sidestep the meaningful opportunity to obtain release requirement of Miller.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Williams v. Steele

State v. Houston-Sconiers et al.

Washington Supreme Court (2016)

The Korematsu Center, along with co-counsel at Perkins Coie, submitted a brief in support of petitioners Zyion Houston-Sconiers and Treson Roberts arguing that Washington's auto-decline statute, which mandates that certain juveniles be tried and sentenced in adult court, violates the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel punishment. The Center argued that recent case law from both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Washington Supreme Court recognizes a procedural corollary to the substantive right against cruel punishment, such that statutory schemes that prevent consideration of the youthfulness of juvenile offenders are unconstitutional, as they create a significant risk of disproportionate punishment.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Houston-Sconiers et al.

State v. Leo

WA State Court of Appeals, Division II (2017)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief, along with Columbia Legal Services and the Washington Defender Association, arguing that Washington's constitutional prohibition of cruel punishment required the court to interpret a juvenile sentencing statute as mandating concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Leo

State v. Scott

WA Supreme Court (2017)

Assisted by clinic staff, students in the Civil Rights & Amicus Clinic filed a memorandum in support of review of Mr. Scott's case, which presents the question of whether a future opportunity for parole can substitute for a juvenile defendant's constitutional right to have his or her characteristics of youth full considerd at sentencing, in light of Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana. After the Court accepted review, the Korematsu joined Jeffrey Ellis as co-counsel on the supplemental brief.

Read the Memorandum In Support of Review
Read the Appellant's Supplemental Brief

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Williams 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division II (2018)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Williams, who was sentenced to serve life without parole under Washington's persistent offender statute, also known as the "Three Strikes" law. Because Mr. Williams committed his first strike offense when he was only sixteen years old, the Korematsu Center argued that it is unconstitutional to impose a life sentence based, in part, on conduct committed as juvenile. The Center based its argument on recent cases from both the United States Supreme Court and Washington courts that recognize that the intrinsic nature of youth undercuts the penological justifications for imposing the harshest sentences.

Read the Center's amicus brief In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Williams

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Light-Roth

WA Supreme Court (2018)

Along with co-counsel Jeffrey Ellis, the Korematsu Center represents Mr. Light-Roth, who was convicted of murder when he was 19. The brief argues that the Washington Supreme Court should hold that its decision in State v. O'Dell applies retroactively. The court in O'Dell held that courts may consider whether the mitigating qualities youth diminishes the culpability of young offenders (i.e., over the age of 18 but still young).

Read the supplemental brief

State v. Bassett

WA Supreme Court (2018)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief, along with Columbia Legal Services, TeamChild, and the Washington Defender Association, providing additional argument to support the lower court's decision that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is categorically barred under Washington's constitution. The amicus brief focused on the utility of the Gunwall factors as important tools for development of an independent body of law under the Washington State constitution.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Bassett

State v. DelBosque

WA Supreme Court (2019)

Along with pro bono co-counsel at Perkins Coie, the Korematsu Center submitted an amicus brief in an appeal from a juvenile resentencing case under Washington's Miller fix statute, advocating that a sentencing court must set the minimum term at 25 years for aggravated murder, where the maximum is automatically life, unless the State proves that the juvenile does not have the hallmark features of youth. The ACLU-WA, the Washington Defender Association, and the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined with the Center as amici.

Read our Center's amicus brief in State v. DelBosque

State v. Gilbert 

Washington Supreme Court (2019)

In Mr. Gilbert's appeal from his resentencing under the Miller-fix statute, the Korematsu Center argued as amicus curiae that article I, section 14 of the Washington constitution required concurrent sentencing to ensure Mr. Gilbert, and other juveniles convicted of murder, have a meaningful opportunity for release.

Read our Center's amicus brief in State v. Gilbert

State v. Moretti, State v. Orr & State v. Nguyen

WA Supreme Court (2019)

In three consolidated cases before the Washington Supreme Court, the Korematsu Center argued as amicus curiae that the Washington constitution's prohibition of cruel punishment should preclude the use of a strike offense committed as a young adult (between the age of 18-21) from qualifying as predicate strike under Washington's three strikes law, which requires the imposition of life without parole after commission of the third strike.

Read our Center's amicus brief in State v. Moretti, State v. Orr & State v. Nguyen

State v. Boot

WA Court of Appeals (2020)

The Korematsu Center, joined by counsel from Fox Rothschild LLP, filed an amicus in the Washington State Court of Appeals arguing that the court did not properly consider the mitigating effects of Mr. Boot’s childhood trauma when determining his sentence. The brief highlighted research which supports the inclusion of racial discrimination as a type of trauma which is appropriate to consider when evaluating culpability for the purposes of sentencing. Amici argue that providing guidance requiring the consideration of trauma caused by racial discrimination during sentencing is necessary to ensure that juvenile offenders are afforded the consideration of their individual culpability required under Miller and by the Washington Constitution, and that doing so will address a contributing factor to race disproportionality in the criminal legal system.

PRP of Domingo-Cornelio / PRP of Ali

WA Supreme Court (2020)

This pair of cases asked whether young people who were sentenced in adult court prior to the implementation of new sentencing rules and without consideration for the mitigating factors of their youth should be entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Korematsu Center, joined by Washington Defender Association, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys filed an amicus brief with the Washington Supreme Court arguing that a post-conviction petitioner establishes prejudice where the judge’s discretion was limited by now-inapplicable sentencing provisions. The brief further argues that the post Houston-Sconiers mandate that a court “must” consider the “mitigating circumstances related to the defendant's youth” constitutes a significant and material change in the law and that Mr. Domingo-Cornelio and Mr. Ali were each entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Court held that Houston-Sconiers did constitute a significant and material change in the law, and requires retroactive application.

State v. Haag

WA Supreme Court (2021)

In 1995, Mr. Haag was sentenced to life without parole for a crime he committed at 17. After changes in Washington law established that “children are different,” Mr. Haag was resentenced to a de facto life sentence in 2018. The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief before the Washington Supreme Court supporting Mr. Haag’s appeal, explaining that sentencing data suggested that lower courts were not resentencing youth according to changes in the law, and arguing for a minimum term of at or near 25 years where there is evidence that the mitigating qualities of youth were reflected in the crime.

State v. Smith 

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus memorandum in support of review before the Washington Supreme Court, asking the Court to decide whether the use of a juvenile strike under the Persistent Accountability Act violated the state constitution’s anti-punishment clause, and discussing the racial disproportionality of the Three Strikes law.

State v. A.K.  

King County Superior Court (2021)

Center faculty consulted with counsel for A.K. on the constitutionality of the auto-decline statute, which divests the juvenile court of jurisdiction for 16 and 17 years olds charged with certain serious crimes. Center faculty drafted a state constitutional challenge to the statute based on due process, equal protection, and cruel punishment which was filed in the trial court.

State v. Gregg

WA Supreme Court (2022)

Mr. Gregg’s appeal challenged the constitutionality of a statute that placed the burden of establishing mitigating circumstances on juvenile defendants during sentencing. The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief urging the Washington Supreme Court to hold that the state constitutional guarantee against cruel punishment required a presumptive mitigated sentence for children under the age of 18, due to their diminished culpability.

PRP of Keonte Smith

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Court of Appeals in Personal Restraint of Keonte Smith, providing empirical studies on adultification of Black children and arguing for explicit consideration of adultification bias when juvenile courts decline jurisdiction of children to adult court for prosecution, as well as during sentencing. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

State v. Tonelli Anderson

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Anderson involved the imposition of a de facto life sentence for a crime Mr. Anderson committed as a child. Mr. Anderson moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision upholding the de facto life sentence and the Korematsu Center filed an amicus motion to the Washington Supreme Court in support of reconsideration explaining how the Court’s articulation of the state constitutional inquiry improperly narrows what must be considered under Miller v. Alabama and other Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The Korematsu Center were joined on the brief by Juvenile Law Center and represented Huy as amicus.

State v. Reynolds

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Reynolds presents the question of whether a predicate strike offense committed under the age of 18 can be the basis for a mandatory life without parole sentence under Washington’s three strikes law. The amicus brief filed by the Korematsu Center to the Washington Supreme Court provided additional state constitutional analysis as well as descriptive statistics regarding the extreme race disproportionality of those sentenced to die in prison based on predicate crimes committed as children. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, King County Department of Public Defense, TeamChild, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association joined as amici.

State v. J.W.M.

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. JWM involves the imposition of a lengthy period of incarceration on a young person of color based on purported treatment needs as well as criminal history. The amicus brief submitted by the Korematsu Center discusses literature regarding adultification of Black youth and other youth of color and asks the Court to direct juvenile courts to account for adultification bias in their disposition decisions. The brief also educated the Court about the harms of incarcerating young people and requested that the harms of incarceration be considered as a non-statutory mitigating factor in any case where a period of incarceration is requested. In its opinion, the Court noted agreement with amici regarding how racial bias can impact sentencing decisions and noted that courts must base manifest injustice dispositions on juvenile offenders’ serious and clear danger to society, not on their need for treatment services. The Korematsu Center partnered with King County of Public Defense and TeamChild on the brief, and represented CHOOSE180 and Creative Justice as amici. 

PRP of Inda

WA Court of Appeals (2023)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, are providing direct representation to Mr. Inda in a post-conviction case before the Court of Appeals, challenging the racially biased application of the discretionary decline statute, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and challenging the adult sentence as substantively disproportionate, given that Mr. Inda was just 15 at the time of the alleged offense.

State v. Gaitan

Yakima Superior Court (2024)

Center faculty, co-counseling with faculty from the Defender Clinic, represented Mr. Gaitan in his resentencing under the Miller-fix statute, and again before the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board to secure his release.

State v. Frazier

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The Korematsu Center, along with co-counsel from Davis Wright Tremaine and ACLU of Washington, filed an amicus brief in the state Supreme Court in Personal Restraint of Charles Frazier. Mr. Frazier requested a new sentencing hearing on the basis of new evidence of late adolescent brain science, and the amicus brief provided additional context and argument related to how the intersection of Mr. Frazier’s race (Black) and age (18) influenced the original sentencing court’s decision to impose an aggravated sentence.

PRP of Williams 

WA Court of Appeals (2024)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, represented Mr. Williams in post-conviction proceedings before the state appellate courts challenging the use of juvenile strikes to support a life without parole sentence under the state constitution's cruel punishment provision. After the courts rejected his petition, Center faculty ultimately prevailed through prosecutor-initiated resentencing and secured Mr. William's release.

 

NWIRP v. Sessions 

US District Court for the Western District of WA (2017)

Working with counsel at Dorsey Whitney, the Korematsu Center filed a brief supporting the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project's request for a preliminary injunction preventing the United States Department of Justice from enforcing the terms of a cease and desist order in which the DOJ instructed NWIRP and other legal aid providers that they could no longer provide limited legal services to immigrants. The court granted the preliminary injunction in July. The Korematsu Center filed a brief in support of NWIRP's motion in which we examined the historical context of this and other cases where those in power have attempted to silence disempowered communities through attacks on their advocates.

Read the Center's amicus brief in NWIRP v. Sessions

Village of Kotlik, et al. v. Frontline Hospital, et al. 

Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage (2017)

The Korematsu Center, as co-counsel with Alaska Legal Services Corporation, has filed a lawsuit against Frontline Hospital and The Office of Children's Services of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to enjoin the administration of psychotropic medications to Native Alaskan foster children in non-crisis situations. The complaint alleges that the practice of subjecting children to this type of medication violates the Alaska Constitution's guarantees of liberty and privacy, and violates statutes that allow individuals to withhold or give consent to psychotropic medications.

Read the Complaint

Katare v. Katare

WA Court of Appeals & WA Supreme Court (2010 & 2011)

In this child custody case, an expert witness used profiles based on national origin to testify regarding the risk that a parent would abduct his child. The Center filed two amicus briefs in the case, requesting the courts to declare the use of such profile evidence improper and prejudicial. The Center represented the Asian Bar Association of Washington, the Pacific Northwest District of the Japanese American Citizens League, and the Vietnamese Bar Association of Washington as amici curiae.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Katare v. Katare 

State v. Sum

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center joined and collaborated on key strategy for a brief with the King County Department of Public Defense, the ACLU-WA, and the Washington Defender Association supporting Mr. Sum's appeal. In Mr. Sum’s case, the Washington Supreme Court’s holding changed the constitutional test for the seizure to include whether an objective observer could view race as a factor in whether a person accused perceived themselves seized per the State Constitution. The Center’s amicus brief highlighted the need to consider the BIPOC experience with law enforcement in determining whether an individual would feel free to leave an encounter with law enforcement and argued for the adoption of the objective observer standard to effectuate this change. 

ER 413 - Working Group

(2015)

Center faculty and Civil Rights Clinic students provided research in support of ER 413, which treats evidence of immigration status as presumptively inadmissible.

GR 37 - Working Group

(2020)

Center faculty participated in the GR 37 workgroup to address racial discrimination in the context of jury selection. This rule—the first peremptory challenge rule to employ a standard that accounts for implicit bias and institutional and systemic racism—has catalyzed rules changes in other jurisdictions.

Juliana v. United States

Ninth Circuit (2020)

In Juliana v. United States, a group of young people, and Earth Guardians, a nonprofit association of young environmental activists, brought an action against the United States and federal officials, alleging that defendants continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction, development, consumption, and exportation, thereby allowing carbon dioxide emissions to escalate and leading to harmful climate change. The plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of substantive due process, equal protection, the Ninth Amendment, and the public trust doctrine. Before the Ninth Circuit on issues of standing, the Korematsu Center, joined by the Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies, the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, and the Howard University Environmental Justice Center, filed an amicus brief arguing that the plaintiffs did have Article III standing and needed the courts to vindicate their rights. The brief drew parallels between the broad action the Warren court took in redressing the harms done to Black children by a “separate but equal” educational system and the action current day courts could take to vindicate the rights of young people suffering harm as a result of state action resulting in climate change.

State v. M.S. / State v. D.L.

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of M.S. and D.L. in their respective cases. Both M.S. and D.L. were sentenced when they were minors and faced challenges at sentencing. The brief, filed to the Washington Supreme Court, supported both by explaining to the court that the juvenile legal system has failed to serve children of color and has resulted in disparate treatment based on race. Additionally, the brief explained that previous courts have held that juveniles are entitled to Due Process protections.

Aji P., et al. v. State of Washington

WA Supreme Court (2021)

In this case, a group of youth plaintiffs sought review of the dismissal of their suit brought against State of Washington and State agencies and officials for infringing on their fundamental right to a stable climate system. The Korematsu Center, joined by the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at NYU Law and the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, submitted a brief arguing that a core function of the judiciary is to determine the existence of constitutional rights and to decide if they have been violated, even when those violations involve complex social problems. The brief highlights the historical role of the courts in vindicating the rights of children suffering harm from the segregation of schools, urging the Washington Supreme Court to accept review and consider the judiciary’s role in setting a constitutionally permissible path of climate redress.

State v. Jackson

WA Supreme Court (2021)

Mr. Jackson was subject to being shackled and restrained at his trial without an individualized hearing, where he was convicted. The case was appealed on the grounds that the trial court violated Mr. Jackson’s constitutional rights as the restraints threatened a fair trial. The Korematsu Center’s amicus brief supported Mr. Jackson’s appeal and conveyed to the Washington Supreme Court that courts uniformly recognize prejudice occurs when a defendant is shackled in front of the jury and that empirical literature suggests that judges have the same bias as juries. Additionally, the brief urged the court that it should clarify that shackling without an individualized hearing requires the state to prove that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that it was a constitutional error for Mr. Jackson not to have an individualized hearing and changed the harmless error test to that the state must show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. J.W.M.

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. JWM involves the imposition of a lengthy period of incarceration on a young person of color based on purported treatment needs as well as criminal history. The amicus brief submitted by the Korematsu Center discusses literature regarding adultification of Black youth and other youth of color and asks the Court to direct juvenile courts to account for adultification bias in their disposition decisions. The brief also educated the Court about the harms of incarcerating young people and requested that the harms of incarceration be considered as a non-statutory mitigating factor in any case where a period of incarceration is requested. In its opinion, the Court noted agreement with amici regarding how racial bias can impact sentencing decisions and noted that courts must base manifest injustice dispositions on juvenile offenders’ serious and clear danger to society, not on their need for treatment services. The Korematsu Center partnered with King County of Public Defense and TeamChild on the brief, and represented CHOOSE180 and Creative Justice as amici.

Yim v. City of Seattle

Ninth Circuit (2022)

Landlords and their trade association sued the City of Seattle, alleging Seattle’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance violated their First Amendment and due process rights by prohibiting them from inquiring about criminal history of current or potential tenants. The Korematsu Center, joined by Pioneer Human Services, Tenants Union of Washington, and ACLU of Washington, filed an amicus brief both in federal trial court and before the Ninth Circuit, urging that the courts uphold the ordinance on the basis that, in light of the history of racist housing policies and the current housing crisis, the City acted responsibly to eliminate an arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary barrier to individuals and families seeking fair access to housing.

State v. Kelly

WA Supreme Court (2023)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief before the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Kelly, highlighting race disparities in those who receive longer sentences due to weapons enhancements. The brief adds additional data and analysis that bolsters the Washington Department of Corrections' own report that found that people of color are more likely to receive weapon enhancements than white individuals convicted for the same types of crimes. The brief, filed on behalf of Freedom Project, Civil Survival, Korematsu Center, King County Department of Public Defense, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, urges the Court to overturn a precedent that prevents judges from exercising discretion with regard to the application of these sentencing enhancements, where there is otherwise a basis for a mitigated sentence. The brief also includes narratives of people of color who are currently incarcerated and serving disproportionate sentences due to the weapons enhancements, even though they were otherwise entitled to a downward departure.

State of Washington v. City of Sunnyside

WA Supreme Court (2023)

The Korematsu Center joined the Fair Housing Center of Washington as amici before the Washington State Supreme Court in State of Washington v. City of Sunnyside, et al., in a case brought by the Wing Luke Civil Rights Unit of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office that challenges Sunnyside’s Crime Free Rental Housing Program. The amicus brief provides additional doctrinal and empirical support for proper analysis of the State’s claims under the disparate impact provisions of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

King County Civil Rights

King County Council (2019 - 2024)

Professor Melissa Lee’s research, recommendations, and testimony formed the backbone of an ordinance adopted in June that established a Human and Civil Rights Commission.

HRDC v. Uttecht

Ninth Circuit (2024)

The Korematsu Center and Columbia Legal Services filed an amicus brief in Human Rights Defense Center v. Uttecht in the Ninth Circuit. The amicus brief supported HRDC’s First Amendment challenge to the Washington Department of Corrections Policy that prevents people who are incarcerated from possessing case law involving Washington prisoners. The brief discussed how the DOC policy is singular among states in the Ninth Circuit in how restrictive it is, as well as the impact of the DOC policy on prisoners attempting to file both personal restraint petitions and other civil rights claims.

Vest Voice v. Hobbs

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The Vet Voice Foundation et al. brought suit against the Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and other state officials to challenge Washington’s signature verification statute, which disparately impacts protected classes of voters. The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Supreme Court, urging the Court to adapt reasonable grounds scrutiny to address claims of interference with free exercise of the right to vote under Article I, section 19 of the state constitution.

PRP of Deshawn Anderson

WA Supreme Court (2024)

Not Yet Filed

PRP of Miller

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2021)

In 2017, the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Houston-Sconiers affirmed that “children are different” and criminal sentencing must take into account the mitigating qualities of youth at sentencing, and must have complete discretion to impose a lesser sentence. That decision was held to be retroactive, prompting Asaria Miller to file a personal restraint petition seeking resentencing. Ms. Miller, who is Black, was sentenced to over 30 years of incarceration for a crime she participated in at the age of 16 . The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Miller before the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing that race operates as a silent aggravator, which often leads Black children to be perceived as adult-like and more likely to receive harsher penalties. The Court of Appeals granted Ms. Miller’s request for resentencing, and adopted amicus’s argument that sentencing courts be required to consider adultification bias whenever sentencing a youth of color.

PRP of Carter Vincent/ PRP of Vincent 

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Vincent, who was seeking resentencing pursuant to the change in the law regarding juvenile sentencing after being sentenced as an adult when he was a juvenile. The brief argued to the court that a conclusive presumption of prejudice exists when a sentencing court fails to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and to use actual and substantial prejudice standard is improper because it could cause unguided speculation, opening the door to arbitrary results. The ACLU-WA and the Washington Defender Association joined.

PRP of Keonte Smith

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Court of Appeals in Personal Restraint of Keonte Smith, providing empirical studies on adultification of Black children and arguing for explicit consideration of adultification bias when juvenile courts decline jurisdiction of children to adult court for prosecution, as well as during sentencing. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

PRP of Inda

WA Court of Appeals (2023)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, are providing direct representation to Mr. Inda in a post-conviction case before the Court of Appeals, challenging the racially biased application of the discretionary decline statute, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and challenging the adult sentence as substantively disproportionate, given that Mr. Inda was just 15 at the time of the alleged offense.

HRDC v. Uttecht 

Ninth Circuit (2024)

The Korematsu Center and Columbia Legal Services filed an amicus brief in Human Rights Defense Center v. Uttecht in the Ninth Circuit. The amicus brief supported HRDC’s First Amendment challenge to the Washington Department of Corrections Policy that prevents people who are incarcerated from possessing case law involving Washington prisoners. The brief discussed how the DOC policy is singular among states in the Ninth Circuit in how restrictive it is, as well as the impact of the DOC policy on prisoners attempting to file both personal restraint petitions and other civil rights claims.

PRP of Williams 

WA Court of Appeals (2024)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, represented Mr. Williams in post-conviction proceedings before the state appellate courts challenging the use of juvenile strikes to support a life without parole sentence under the state constitution's cruel punishment provision. After the courts rejected his petition, Center faculty ultimately prevailed through prosecutor-initiated resentencing and secured Mr. William's release.

PRP of Deshawn Anderson

WA Supreme Court (2024)

Not Yet Filed 

Hedges v. Obama 

Second Circuit (2012)

This amicus brief, prepared by the Center with co-counsel, challenged provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that permit military officials to indefinitely detain, without due process, individuals believed to be involved in or supporting terrorist activity. The brief asked the court to remember the lessons of the Japanese American incarceration and carefully scrutinize government actions that curtail civil liberties. The brief was filed on behalf of the children of Fred Korematsu, Minoru Yasui, and Gordon Hirabayashi as amici curiae.

Read the amicus brief in Hedges v. Obama

Vergara v. California

California Court of Appeals (2015)

The Korematsu Center and co-counsel Mary Kelly Persyn filed this brief supporting Intervenors-Appellants California Teachers Association, arguing that teacher tenure laws protect teachers in the exercise of their professional discretion to the benefit of students and schools. The Center represented Award-Winning California Teachers, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law & Equality, and American Association of University Professors as amici curiae.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Vergara v. California

Native Village of Hooper Bay and Native Village of Kongiganak v. Lawton et al.

Anchorage Superior Court (2016)

The Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Indian Law & Policy in support of the Tribes, arguing that a native foster child involuntarily admitted for emergency care to a private psychiatric hospital is entitled to a post-admission judicial hearing within 72 hours of admission to justify continued detention. The court awarded preliminary injunctive relief to the tribes, and the Center continues to monitor the case.

Read the Center's amicus brief in the Hooper Bay case

Harris v. Quinn 

Supreme Court of the United States (2014)

Professor Charlotte Garden, along with co-counsel, submitted a brief on behalf of the Korematsu Center and a large group of labor law professors. The brief argues that states are free to bargain collectively with home healthcare aides who are paid by the state but hired and directed by individual customers, and that union-represented aides can in turn be required to pay for their share of the costs of collective bargaining. The brief focuses on how governments benefit when they choose to bargain collectively with their own workforces, and explains why common ways that states structure their labor relations are consistent with the First Amendment.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Harris v. Quinn

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 

United States Supreme Court (2015)

This amicus brief addressed the importance of public sector agency fee requirements, under which union-represented workers must pay their share of the costs of contract negotiation and administration. The brief explained how the collective bargaining process, which is supported by agency fees, improves many states' abilities to deliver public services. Charlotte Garden, litigation director of the Center, along with co-counsel Matthew Bodie, filed the brief on behalf of 48 labor law and labor relations professors.

Read the amicus brief in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

State v. Bagby 

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in State v. Bagby, which presented the issue of whether the prosecutor’s repeated references to Mr. Bagby’s “nationality” constituted race-based prosecutorial misconduct. The amicus brief highlighted how racially coded language can animate racial prejudice, and advocated for the adoption of the objective observer standard to establish whether race-based prosecutorial misconduct occurred. The brief also argued for a per se prejudice rule in cases of race-based prosecutorial misconduct. The Washington Supreme Court adopted the arguments of amicus arguments and vacated Mr. Bagby’s conviction. 

State v. Zamora

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court in support of Mr. Zamora’s appeal after he was convicted of assault of two police officers. Mr. Zamora appealed the conviction because his constitutional rights were violated because the prosecutor appealed to jurors’ potential racial bias during voir dire by repeatedly making references to illegal immigration and its connection to safety concerns. The brief urged the court to adopt more structural efforts and GR 37’s objective observer in light of race-based prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that “race-based prosecutorial misconduct necessarily results in incurable prejudice and thus cannot be deemed harmless…State-sanctioned invocation of racial or ethnic bias in the justice system is unacceptable.” The court reversed and vacated Mr. Zamora’s conviction. The ACLU-WA, King County Department of Public Defense, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, OneAmerica, Public Defender Association, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association joined.

State v. Gates

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The ACLU-WA and the Korematsu Center co-wrote an amicus brief filed in the Washington Supreme Court supporting Mr. Gates.  In Mr. Gates’s case, issues of race-based prosecutorial misconduct and privacy issues were raised. The brief argued that review should be granted because the case presented significant questions of constitutional law and public interest of privacy when Mr. Gates was recorded as a passenger of a ride-share driver.  

State v. Boot

WA Court of Appeals (2020)

The Korematsu Center, joined by counsel from Fox Rothschild LLP, filed an amicus in the Washington State Court of Appeals arguing that the court did not properly consider the mitigating effects of Mr. Boot’s childhood trauma when determining his sentence. The brief highlighted research which supports the inclusion of racial discrimination as a type of trauma which is appropriate to consider when evaluating culpability for the purposes of sentencing. Amici argue that providing guidance requiring the consideration of trauma caused by racial discrimination during sentencing is necessary to ensure that juvenile offenders are afforded the consideration of their individual culpability required under Miller and by the Washington Constitution, and that doing so will address a contributing factor to race disproportionality in the criminal legal system.

State v. Jackson

WA Supreme Court (2021)

Mr. Jackson was subject to being shackled and restrained at his trial without an individualized hearing, where he was convicted. The case was appealed on the grounds that the trial court violated Mr. Jackson’s constitutional rights as the restraints threatened a fair trial. The Korematsu Center’s amicus brief supported Mr. Jackson’s appeal and conveyed to the Washington Supreme Court that courts uniformly recognize prejudice occurs when a defendant is shackled in front of the jury and that empirical literature suggests that judges have the same bias as juries. Additionally, the brief urged the court that it should clarify that shackling without an individualized hearing requires the state to prove that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that it was a constitutional error for Mr. Jackson not to have an individualized hearing and changed the harmless error test to that the state must show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Sum

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center joined and collaborated on key strategy for a brief with the King County Department of Public Defense, the ACLU-WA, and the Washington Defender Association supporting Mr. Sum's appeal. In Mr. Sum’s case, the Washington Supreme Court’s holding changed the constitutional test for the seizure to include whether an objective observer could view race as a factor in whether a person accused perceived themselves seized per the State Constitution. The Center’s amicus brief highlighted the need to consider the BIPOC experience with law enforcement in determining whether an individual would feel free to leave an encounter with law enforcement and argued for the adoption of the objective observer standard to effectuate this change. 

M.G. v. Yakima School District

WA Supreme Court (2023)

Yakima School District No. 7 placed M.G., a high school student, into long-term suspension without proper process and provided him an online program that did not meet his educational needs. The Korematsu Center joined the amicus brief of ACLU-WA filed before the Washington Supreme Court arguing that M.G.’s enrollment in an online program violated his right to education and due process under the Washington constitution, and that the process invited racial bias against M.G. The Washington Supreme Court held that M.G.’s right to due process was violated, and he was entitled to return to his regular educational setting.

State v. Frazier

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The Korematsu Center, along with co-counsel from Davis Wright Tremaine and ACLU of Washington, filed an amicus brief in the state Supreme Court in Personal Restraint of Charles Frazier. Mr. Frazier requested a new sentencing hearing on the basis of new evidence of late adolescent brain science, and the amicus brief provided additional context and argument related to how the intersection of Mr. Frazier’s race (Black) and age (18) influenced the original sentencing court’s decision to impose an aggravated sentence.

 

State v. Gregory 

WA Supreme Court (2016)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief arguing that Washington's death penalty statute is unconstitutional under both the Washington and federal constitutions, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. The Center argued that Mr. Gregory's statistical evidence of racial disproportionality in the imposition of the death penalty in Washington provided the Court a basis on which to revisit the constitutionality of the statute. The Center also discussed the extra-legal factors such as racial bias that continue to influence the administration of the death penalty. The brief explained that while aversive racism may negatively affects Black defendants, making them less likely to receive mercy (or discretionary leniency) from a jury, an equally important explanation for racial disproportionality is that in-group favoritism may positively affect White defendants, making them more likely to receive mercy.

Read the Center's amicus brief in State v. Gregory

State v. Jenks

WA Supreme Court (2020)

State v Jenks asked whether the statute which removed second degree robbery from the list of “most serious offenses” should be applied retroactively to remove the offense as a strike under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. The Korematsu Center, joined by American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Justice Policy Institute, Columbia Legal Services, the Sentencing Project, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association, filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court arguing that in order to remedy the stark race disproportionality of second degree robbery strike offenses, the Court should extend the common law rule regarding statutory retroactivity to apply to any final POAA sentences with a second degree robbery strike.

State v. Smith 

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus memorandum in support of review before the Washington Supreme Court, asking the Court to decide whether the use of a juvenile strike under the Persistent Accountability Act violated the state constitution’s anti-punishment clause, and discussing the racial disproportionality of the Three Strikes law.

State v. Reynolds

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Reynolds presents the question of whether a predicate strike offense committed under the age of 18 can be the basis for a mandatory life without parole sentence under Washington’s three strikes law. The amicus brief filed by the Korematsu Center to the Washington Supreme Court provided additional state constitutional analysis as well as descriptive statistics regarding the extreme race disproportionality of those sentenced to die in prison based on predicate crimes committed as children. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, King County Department of Public Defense, TeamChild, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association joined as amici.

State v. Kelly

WA Supreme Court (2023)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief before the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Kelly, highlighting race disparities in those who receive longer sentences due to weapons enhancements. The brief adds additional data and analysis that bolsters the Washington Department of Corrections' own report that found that people of color are more likely to receive weapon enhancements than white individuals convicted for the same types of crimes. The brief, filed on behalf of Freedom Project, Civil Survival, Korematsu Center, King County Department of Public Defense, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, urges the Court to overturn a precedent that prevents judges from exercising discretion with regard to the application of these sentencing enhancements, where there is otherwise a basis for a mitigated sentence. The brief also includes narratives of people of color who are currently incarcerated and serving disproportionate sentences due to the weapons enhancements, even though they were otherwise entitled to a downward departure. 

In re Simon Shiao Tam

Federal Circuit (2015)

While the Washington Redskins trademark dispute has garnered national attention, a lesser-known case that is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may determine whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had the authority to rescind the Washington Redskins trademark. The amicus brief urges the court to recognize that federal registration of a disparaging mark implicates the government, and to not make the federal trademark registry a place where racism is recorded and authorized, and to not require our government to perpetuate racism.

Read the amicus brief co-authored by the Korematsu Center, the South Asian Bar Association of Washington, D.C., and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association as amici curiae.

Lee v. Tam

Supreme Court of the United States (2016)

The Korematsu Center was joined by the the Hispanic National Bar Association, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the National Bar Association, the National LGBT Bar Association, and the National Native American Bar Association in filing a brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the federal government's power to deny or rescind federal registration of racially disparaging trademarks does not violate the First Amendment. The trademark registration in this case involved an Asian American dance band that named itself by a racial slur as part of an attempt to re-appropriate the term. A common public misperception is that denial or cancellation of federal registration means that the band and the Washington D.C. football team will lose their trademarks or will no longer be able to use their names. This is not the case. They remain free, as they have, to continue using their racially disparaging trademarks and can sue to protect against infringement. The amicus brief argues that the federal government's power is important as part of its power to regulate commerce and is especially important because of the way racially disparaging trademarks can lead to a return to a segregated marketplace. The Korematsu Center previously filed briefs on this issue before the Federal and Fourth Circuits of the United States Court of Appeals.

Read the full brief here.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (2016)

The Korematsu Center, along with co-counsel at Perkins Coie, filed this amicus brief highlighting the continued marginalization of Native Americans, and, against this backdrop, argued that Congress's decision to require the Patent & Trademark Office to refuse to register racially disparaging trademarks does not infringe upon Pro-Football's free speech. The Center represented the National Native American Bar Association, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Native Hawaiian Bar Association, and California Indian Law as amici curiae in support of the Blackhorse defendants.

Read the amicus brief in Pro-Football v. Blackhorse

M&G Polymers v. Tackett 

Supreme Court of the United States

Professor Charlotte Garden, on behalf of the Korematsu Center and along with co-counsel, submitted an amicus brief in support of a group of retirees fighting to prevent their former employer from reducing their healthcare benefits. In Tackett, the Court was faced with deciding how to interpret ambiguous language in a collective bargaining agreement: should the language be read as committing the employer to pay for retiree health benefits for the life of the retiree, or only for the life of the three-year contract? To rebut the employer's argument that employers would presumably use very clear language if they intended to undertake such a large commitment as funding lifetime retiree health benefits, the Center's brief showed that retiree health commitments were first negotiated in a context dramatically different than today's. Specifically, the brief showed that employers were facing a very different set of incentives in the mid-1960s and 1970s, when many retiree health clauses were originally negotiated - particularly because retiree health benefits were often quite inexpensive. Thus, the brief reasoned that ambiguous language should not be taken as a sign that the parties did not originally intend to vest lifetime retiree health benefits.

Read the Center's amicus brief in M&G Polymers v. Tackett

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Brothers Dairy, Inc.

WA Supreme Court (2019)

In 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against DeRuyter Brothers Dairy, Inc., the Washington State Dairy Federation, and the Washington Farm Bureau. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the apgricultural worker exemption of overtime pay required in the Washington Minimum Wage Act. The Court held the exemption violated the privileges and immunities clause of Art I, Sec. 12 of the Washington state constitution. Thpe Korematsus Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington Supreme Court arguing that the challenge to the Minimum Wage Act not only violated the privileges and immunities clause, but also the state equal protection clause, because the exemption disparately impacted Latine farmworkers.

Colvin v. Inslee

WA Supreme Court (2020)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief supporting incarcerated individuals in their Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Washington State Supreme Court seeking the release of those in DOC custody during the public health crisis that was the COVID-19 pandemic. The brief supported the petition by situating Washington in the national context of that time, providing additional context for the potential consequences of failing to grant the petitioners’ request, and asserting that entry of the writ was justified due to violations of the stat constitutional guarantee against cruel punishment. The ACLU-WA, the Public Defender Association, and the Washington Innocence Project joined.

PRP of Brooks

WA Supreme Court (2020)

In re Personal Restraint of Brooks asked whether Washington State’s Miller fix statute, which ensures that courts sentencing young people prosecuted in adult court consider the mitigating qualities of youth when fashioning punishment, applied to Carl Brooks, who was sentenced as a juvenile under an earlier sentencing scheme. The Korematsu Center, joined by the ACLU of Washington, Columbia Legal Services, Juvenile Law Center, King County Department of Public Defense, National Juvenile Defender Center, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Washington Defender Association, filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court arguing that both racial justice and the principle that “children are different” supported a ruling that the Miller fix statute applied to Mr. Brooks’s life-equivalent sentence. In an en banc ruling, the Court held that it did.  

PRP of Domingo-Cornelio / PRP of Ali

WA Supreme Court (2020)

This pair of cases asked whether young people who were sentenced in adult court prior to the implementation of new sentencing rules and without consideration for the mitigating factors of their youth should be entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Korematsu Center, joined by Washington Defender Association, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys filed an amicus brief with the Washington Supreme Court arguing that a post-conviction petitioner establishes prejudice where the judge’s discretion was limited by now-inapplicable sentencing provisions. The brief further argues that the post Houston-Sconiers mandate that a court “must” consider the “mitigating circumstances related to the defendant's youth” constitutes a significant and material change in the law and that Mr. Domingo-Cornelio and Mr. Ali were each entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The Court held that Houston-Sconiers did constitute a significant and material change in the law, and requires retroactive application.

Aji P., et al. v. State of Washington

WA Supreme Court (2021)

In this case, a group of youth plaintiffs sought review of the dismissal of their suit brought against State of Washington and State agencies and officials for infringing on their fundamental right to a stable climate system. The Korematsu Center, joined by the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at NYU Law and the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, submitted a brief arguing that a core function of the judiciary is to determine the existence of constitutional rights and to decide if they have been violated, even when those violations involve complex social problems. The brief highlights the historical role of the courts in vindicating the rights of children suffering harm from the segregation of schools, urging the Washington Supreme Court to accept review and consider the judiciary’s role in setting a constitutionally permissible path of climate redress.

PRP of Carter Vincent/ PRP of Vincent

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Vincent, who was seeking resentencing pursuant to the change in the law regarding juvenile sentencing after being sentenced as an adult when he was a juvenile. The brief argued to the court that a conclusive presumption of prejudice exists when a sentencing court fails to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and to use actual and substantial prejudice standard is improper because it could cause unguided speculation, opening the door to arbitrary results. The ACLU-WA and the Washington Defender Association joined.

PRP of Miller

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2021)

In 2017, the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Houston-Sconiers affirmed that “children are different” and criminal sentencing must take into account the mitigating qualities of youth at sentencing, and must have complete discretion to impose a lesser sentence. That decision was held to be retroactive, prompting Asaria Miller to file a personal restraint petition seeking resentencing. Ms. Miller, who is Black, was sentenced to over 30 years of incarceration for a crime she participated in at the age of 16 . The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Miller before the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing that race operates as a silent aggravator, which often leads Black children to be perceived as adult-like and more likely to receive harsher penalties. The Court of Appeals granted Ms. Miller’s request for resentencing, and adopted amicus’s argument that sentencing courts be required to consider adultification bias whenever sentencing a youth of color.

PRP of Rufus Williams

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Personal Restraint Petition of Mr. Williams before the Washington Supreme Court supporting Mr. Williams’s request for a more protective standard for conditions of confinement under the state constitution’s analogue to the Eighth Amendment. The brief presented information that Black people, especially Black men, are overrepresented in prison populations and are consequentially disproportionally exposed to COVID-19. Additionally, Black overrepresentation is a product of structural racism and must inform how cruel punishment is assessed.

State v. A.K.

King County Superior Court (2021)

Center faculty consulted with counsel for A.K. on the constitutionality of the auto-decline statute, which divests the juvenile court of jurisdiction for 16 and 17 years olds charged with certain serious crimes. Center faculty drafted a state constitutional challenge to the statute based on due process, equal protection, and cruel punishment which was filed in the trial court.

State v. Smith

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus memorandum in support of review before the Washington Supreme Court, asking the Court to decide whether the use of a juvenile strike under the Persistent Accountability Act violated the state constitution’s anti-punishment clause, and discussing the racial disproportionality of the Three Strikes law.

PRP of Keonte Smith

WA Court of Appeals - Div II (2022)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in the Washington State Court of Appeals in Personal Restraint of Keonte Smith, providing empirical studies on adultification of Black children and arguing for explicit consideration of adultification bias when juvenile courts decline jurisdiction of children to adult court for prosecution, as well as during sentencing. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, TeamChild, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

State v. Reynolds

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Reynolds presents the question of whether a predicate strike offense committed under the age of 18 can be the basis for a mandatory life without parole sentence under Washington’s three strikes law. The amicus brief filed by the Korematsu Center to the Washington Supreme Court provided additional state constitutional analysis as well as descriptive statistics regarding the extreme race disproportionality of those sentenced to die in prison based on predicate crimes committed as children. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, King County Department of Public Defense, TeamChild, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association joined as amici.

State v. Rivers

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center submitted an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Rivers. Mr. Rivers asks the Court to ensure that people accused of crimes have an effective way, under our state constitution, to challenge a jury venire that is not representative of a fair cross section of their community. The amicus brief explains that an effective remedial approach to fair cross section claims under our state constitution (1) will help counteract our country’s racist history of excluding Black people from jury service; (2) is a principled development of this Court’s anti-discrimination jurisprudence that accounts for the operation of systemic racism; and (3) recognizes important empirical evidence that diverse juries engage in a more thorough—and more fair—deliberative process. King County of Department of Public Defense and Public Defender Association joined the Korematsu Center as amici.

State v. Sum

WA Supreme Court (2022)

The Korematsu Center joined and collaborated on key strategy for a brief with the King County Department of Public Defense, the ACLU-WA, and the Washington Defender Association supporting Mr. Sum's appeal. In Mr. Sum’s case, the Washington Supreme Court’s holding changed the constitutional test for the seizure to include whether an objective observer could view race as a factor in whether a person accused perceived themselves seized per the State Constitution. The Center’s amicus brief highlighted the need to consider the BIPOC experience with law enforcement in determining whether an individual would feel free to leave an encounter with law enforcement and argued for the adoption of the objective observer standard to effectuate this change. 

State v. Tonelli Anderson

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Anderson involved the imposition of a de facto life sentence for a crime Mr. Anderson committed as a child. Mr. Anderson moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision upholding the de facto life sentence and the Korematsu Center filed an amicus motion to the Washington Supreme Court in support of reconsideration explaining how the Court’s articulation of the state constitutional inquiry improperly narrows what must be considered under Miller v. Alabama and other Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The Korematsu Center were joined on the brief by Juvenile Law Center and represented Huy as amicus.

M.G. v. Yakima School District

WA Supreme Court (2023)

Yakima School District No. 7 placed M.G., a high school student, into long-term suspension without proper process and provided him an online program that did not meet his educational needs. The Korematsu Center joined the amicus brief of ACLU-WA filed before the Washington Supreme Court arguing that M.G.’s enrollment in an online program violated his right to education and due process under the Washington constitution, and that the process invited racial bias against M.G. The Washington Supreme Court held that M.G.’s right to due process was violated, and he was entitled to return to his regular educational setting.

PRP of Inda

WA Court of Appeals (2023)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, are providing direct representation to Mr. Inda in a post-conviction case before the Court of Appeals, challenging the racially biased application of the discretionary decline statute, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and challenging the adult sentence as substantively disproportionate, given that Mr. Inda was just 15 at the time of the alleged offense.

Vest Voice v. Hobbs

WA Supreme Court (2024)

The Vet Voice Foundation et al. brought suit against the Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and other state officials to challenge Washington’s signature verification statute, which disparately impacts protected classes of voters. The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief in  the Washington State Supreme Court, urging the Court to adapt reasonable grounds scrutiny to address claims of interference with free exercise of the right to vote under Article I, section  19 of the state constitution.

State v. Jenks

WA Supreme Court (2020)

State v Jenks asked whether the statute which removed second degree robbery from the list of “most serious offenses” should be applied retroactively to remove the offense as a strike under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. The Korematsu Center, joined by American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Justice Policy Institute, Columbia Legal Services, the Sentencing Project, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association, filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court arguing that in order to remedy the stark race disproportionality of second degree robbery strike offenses, the Court should extend the common law rule regarding statutory retroactivity to apply to any final POAA sentences with a second degree robbery strike.

State v. Kelly

WA Supreme Court (2023)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus brief before the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Kelly, highlighting race disparities in those who receive longer sentences due to weapons enhancements. The brief adds additional data and analysis that bolsters the Washington Department of Corrections' own report that found that people of color are more likely to receive weapon enhancements than white individuals convicted for the same types of crimes. The brief, filed on behalf of Freedom Project, Civil Survival, Korematsu Center, King County Department of Public Defense, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, urges the Court to overturn a precedent that prevents judges from exercising discretion with regard to the application of these sentencing enhancements, where there is otherwise a basis for a mitigated sentence. The brief also includes narratives of people of color who are currently incarcerated and serving disproportionate sentences due to the weapons enhancements, even though they were otherwise entitled to a downward departure. 

Floeting v. Group Health Cooperative

WA Supreme Court (2018)

The Korematsu Center and Legal Voice filed an amicus brief in a case in which the court must interpret Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) to define what constitutes harassment and who is liable for it. The Center asks the court to adopt a definition of discrimination that would encompass harassment - conduct that falls short of outright denial of service - such as humiliation, harassment, or insult. Such a definition would ensure that all people have the right to full enjoyment of public accommodations, and would impose liability for unfair practices in places such as hospitals, civic spaces, restaurants, and hotels.

Read the Center's amicus brief in Floeting v. Group Health Cooperative

State v. Jenks

WA Supreme Court (2020)

State v Jenks asked whether the statute which removed second degree robbery from the list of “most serious offenses” should be applied retroactively to remove the offense as a strike under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. The Korematsu Center, joined by American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Justice Policy Institute, Columbia Legal Services, the Sentencing Project, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association, filed an amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court arguing that in order to remedy the stark race disproportionality of second degree robbery strike offenses, the Court should extend the common law rule regarding statutory retroactivity to apply to any final POAA sentences with a second degree robbery strike.

State v. Smith 

WA Supreme Court (2021)

The Korematsu Center filed an amicus memorandum in support of review before the Washington Supreme Court, asking the Court to decide whether the use of a juvenile strike under the Persistent Accountability Act violated the state constitution’s anti-punishment clause, and discussing the racial disproportionality of the Three Strikes law.

State v. Reynolds

WA Supreme Court (2022)

State v. Reynolds presents the question of whether a predicate strike offense committed under the age of 18 can be the basis for a mandatory life without parole sentence under Washington’s three strikes law. The amicus brief filed by the Korematsu Center to the Washington Supreme Court provided additional state constitutional analysis as well as descriptive statistics regarding the extreme race disproportionality of those sentenced to die in prison based on predicate crimes committed as children. Korematsu Center partners at ACLU of Washington, King County Department of Public Defense, TeamChild, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Defender Association joined as amici.

PRP of Williams 

WA Court of Appeals (2024)

Center faculty, along with Civil Rights Clinic students, represented Mr. Williams in post-conviction proceedings before the state appellate courts challenging the use of juvenile strikes to support a life without parole sentence under the state constitution's cruel punishment provision. After the courts rejected his petition, Center faculty ultimately prevailed through prosecutor-initiated resentencing and secured Mr. William's release.

Hoisington v. Williams

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2012)

Supervised by clinic staff, students in the Civil Rights & Amicus Clinic represented Mr. Hoisington, a civilly committed sex offender, challenging conditions of confinement, such as strip searches and shackling, at the McNeil Island Civil Commitment Center.

Read the Opening Brief of Appellant

Read the Appellant's Reply Brief