M.D. v. Perry: NACC and several law professors filed an amicus brief in support of Texan foster youth seeking class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) to obtain an injunction to remedy system-wide failures of the state’s child welfare system.

J.D.B v. North Carolina: NACC joined an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to hold that the age of an adolescent suspect is a crucial factor in Miranda custody determinations.

DSHS, State of Washington v. Luak: NACC joined an amicus brief asking the Washington Supreme Court to recognize children’s right to independent counsel in TPR proceedings.

In re Mays: NACC filed an amicus brief arguing that the court’s failure to obtain the views of the children subject to a TPR proceeding violated their due process rights and that Michigan’s “one-parent” doctrine violated a parent’s due process rights by requiring the non-offending parent to prove their fitness. 

Demiraj v. Holder: NACC and partner organizations filed this amicus brief asking the United States Supreme Court to grant cert to decide whether, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), persecution of one family member in retaliation for another family member’s actions is persecution “on account of” family membership.

In re termination of D.R and A.R.: NACC joined children’s organizations in an amicus brief asking the Washington Supreme Court to recognize children’s right to legal counsel in TPR proceedings.

In the Matter of Ethan, Emily, Tarah, and Titus Bratcher: NACC filed an amicus brief arguing that a parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the custody of their children cannot be lawfully infringed without a judicial finding of unfitness.

In the Matter of David and Joshua Moore: NACC filed an amicus brief contending that the mother’s procedural due process rights were violated when her children were removed from her custody without an adjudication on her fitness.

Sam and Tony M. v. Carcieri: In this amicus brief, NACC argued that foster youth are entitled to have an individual other than their GAL to sue as their representative in a federal class action lawsuit.

Alan and Sheryl Sidman v. Michael and Renee Sidman: NACC joined an amicus brief arguing that after an extended guardianship and infrequent parental contact, the burden shifts to the parents to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination of the guardianship to which they had consented, would be in the child’s best interests.