No. The judge's decision was unfair and against the rules. Moving a teenager to adult court is a huge deal—it can be the difference between getting help until age 21 and getting a life sentence in prison. A decision this big can't be made casually. The court said there must be a 'ceremony' for such an important choice, which means a hearing, a lawyer who can actually do their job by seeing the evidence, and a written reason from the judge. The whole point of juvenile court is to act like a parent and help kids, not to be unfair. Kids shouldn't get the 'worst of both worlds,' where they lack the rights of an adult and also don't get the special care the juvenile system promises.

The Supreme Court shouldn't have answered the question at all. This case was about a local law in Washington D.C., and the local appeals court is the expert on those. That local court had recently made other rulings that seemed to change its mind on this issue. The Supreme Court should have just sent the case back to the local court and told them to sort it out based on their own newer rules.

No, it wasn't fair. The juvenile court made a really important decision about Kent's life without giving him a chance to argue against it. They should have had a meeting, let Kent's lawyer see the important documents, and explained their reasons. Just because Kent was a kid doesn't mean the court could do whatever they wanted with his case. They still had to be fair and follow the rules.

I disagree. This case is about a law that's only for Washington, D.C. Our court usually lets the appeals court in D.C. make decisions about D.C. laws. But it seems like the appeals court might have changed their mind about what this law means after they decided Kent's case. So I think we should send Kent's case back to the appeals court so they can think about it again with their new ideas in mind.

There is evidence, in fact, that there may be grounds for concern that the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children

The US Supreme Court has held that a juvenile is entitled to a hearing, the effective assistance of counsel, and a statement of reasons before the court can waive juvenile court jurisdiction.

—the Supreme Court considered the validity of a waiver of jurisdiction by the District of Columbia Juvenile Court.

And further, " `We do not mean... to indicate that the hearing to be held must conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative hearing; but we do hold that the hearing must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.'"

—the US Supreme Court held that a waiver of jurisdiction (by the juvenile court) is a "critically important" action determining the vitally important statutory rights of a minor.

Government decisionmakers do not gain a "license for arbitrary procedure" when legislators confer a "substantial degree of discretion" regarding the assessment of subjective considerations.

—decided by the United States Supreme Court on the question of the juvenile court's waiver of its original exclusive jurisdiction

—the Supreme Court held that in a juvenile transfer hearing the court must state its reasons for its disposition "with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review."

"[T] here is no place in our system of law for reaching a result [waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction] of such tremendous consequences without ceremony—without hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons."

A minor's right to due process in juvenile delinquency proceeds includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel

Yes. A Juvenile Court's waiver of jurisdiction is invalid without a hearing, access for counsel to social records, and a statement of reasons, as these procedures are essential for due process and fair treatment. The decision to transfer a juvenile to adult court is a 'critically important' step that determines vitally important statutory rights. While juvenile proceedings are not criminal trials, the guiding principle of 'parens patriae' does not permit procedural arbitrariness, and a juvenile should not receive the 'worst of both worlds'—neither the protections of an adult nor the solicitous care promised to children. Effective assistance of counsel, a right afforded to juveniles in D.C., is meaningless if counsel is denied the opportunity to review the records the court will consider and to be heard on the critical issue of waiver. Therefore, the waiver order must be accompanied by a statement of reasons sufficient to demonstrate that the court conducted a 'full investigation' and to permit meaningful appellate review.

The Court should not have reached the merits of the case. The case involves the construction of a statute applicable only to the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court's general practice is to defer to the D.C. Court of Appeals on such local matters. Because the Court of Appeals had issued subsequent decisions that appeared to modify its interpretation of the waiver statute, the proper course of action would be to vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of its own more recent and potentially conflicting precedents.

Yes, the waiver was invalid because it was made without a hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, and without a statement of reasons. The Juvenile Court's order waiving jurisdiction and transferring Kent for trial in the District Court was invalid. As a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner was entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile Court's decision. The waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile. The statute gives the Juvenile Court a substantial degree of discretion as to the factual considerations to be evaluated, the weight to be given them and the conclusion to be reached. But it does not confer upon the Juvenile Court a license for arbitrary procedure. The statute does not permit the Juvenile Court to determine in isolation and without the participation or any representation of the child the critically important question whether a child will be deprived of the special protections and provisions of the Juvenile Court Act.

I dissent because this case involves the construction of a statute applicable only to the District of Columbia, and our general practice is to leave undisturbed decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning the import of legislation governing the affairs of the District. However, it appears that two cases decided by the Court of Appeals subsequent to its decision in the present case may have considerably modified the court's construction of the statute. Therefore, I would vacate this judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of its subsequent decisions.

Kent v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot