Khaled AF Al Odah v. United States: NACC joined an amicus brief arguing that military commissions convened pursuant to the Military Commission Act lacked jurisdiction over juveniles.

Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana: NACC filed an amicus brief explaining why the “reasonable person” standard for defining “testimonial” statements under the Confrontation Clause is flawed.

Roper v. Simmons: NACC joined several organizations in the filing of an amicus brief, urging the United States Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on youth who were under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense.

Strogner v. California: NACC joined this amicus brief in support of extending California’s statute of limitations for certain child sexual abuse offenses.

Kelsey v. Florida: NACC and several legal organizations filed an amicus brief arguing that a youth’s lengthy prison sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Graham v. Florida, in that it deprived him of the opportunity to re-enter society after demonstrating maturity and rehabilitation.

In re the Dependency of K.P.T.: NACC and other children’s rights organizations filed an amicus brief seeking the appointment of independent counsel for children in Washington dependency proceedings.

State of Missouri v. Jerri Smiley: NACC joined an amicus brief asserting that a statute’s mandatory incarceration provision was unconstitutional as applied to youth.

Montgomery v. Louisiana: NACC and partners filed an amicus brief urging the retroactive application of the Miller v. Alabama decision holding that mandatory life without parole sentences for youth are unconstitutional.

In re McCarthy: NACC joined an amicus brief arguing that courts should consider the views of youth age fourteen and older before entering a TPR order over their objection.

Adoptive Couple, v. Baby Girl, a Minor Under the Age of Fourteen Years, Birth Father, and the Cherokee Nation: NACC joined an amicus brief requesting that the United States Supreme Court grant cert to clarify the scope of ICWA, in particular whether a non-custodial parent can invoke ICWA to block an adoption initiated by a non-Indian custodial parent and whether an unwed biological father who is not considered a “parent” under state law is nevertheless a “parent” under ICWA.