By Ross Miller, Paul Heaton, Haley Sturges

Presumptive field tests for illicit substances have become an integral part of policing. Inexpensive and fast, these tests have become a tool of choice for law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, they are notoriously imprecise and are known to produce “false positives,” where innocuous legal substances (e.g., baking soda) provide the same result as an illegal substance (e.g., cocaine) and leading to frequent wrongful arrests and wrongful convictions. Although originally developed as a preliminary-only testing method due to their unreliability, these tests have become de facto and inaccurate determinants of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases, causing considerable negative and undeserved consequences for thousands upon thousands of Americans. In the modern U.S. criminal legal “system of pleas, not...of trials” (Lafler v. Cooper, 2012) where 95% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, the unreliability of these tests undermines public trust in the justice system and creates a liability risk for jurisdictions that rely on them. This research report provides the first-ever comprehensive analysis of presumptive drug field test usage across law enforcement agencies in the United States. Utilizing a nationwide survey of agencies, the report offers national estimates on the frequency of test usage, finding that each year approximately 773,000 drug-related arrests involve the use of presumptive tests. Using the survey data and national estimates of drug arrests, this report examines the impact of the tests on wrongful arrests, racial disparities in their use, and their subsequent impact on drug possession prosecutions and dispositions.

 2023. 68p.

By Gillian Slee

Research shows that street-level bureaucrats rely on notions of deservingness to manage their caseloads. Accounts traditionally identify how workers use mainstream cues to categorize clients, but a growing literature calls for situated accounts of discretion. This study draws on fieldwork with public defenders to describe how institutional position and professional knowledge condition discretion. I analyze how the dynamics of representation inform defenders’ understandings of and advocacy for clients with varying criminal-legal backgrounds and needs. In this case study, defenders’ perceived strategic options penetrate their estimations of clients’ deservingness and drive their advocacy. Tailored representation elevates the needs of individuals without records and those with unremitting criminal-legal contact, helping attorneys manage their caseloads and advance their aspirations, but it produces uneven defense. I develop a role concept, “structural antagonist,” to signify and describe a uniquely situated street-level bureaucrat whose mandate includes both serving and straining the institution.

Social Service Review, volume 97, number 4, December 2023.

By James R. Acker, Bethany Backes, Catherine L. Bonventre, Eric Martin, Angela Moore,  Robert J. Norris,  Allison D. Redlich

This report contains three chapters: Chapter 1 reviews 100 years of scholarship on wrongful convictions, ranging from early case studies of exonerations to more recent scientific analyses of wrongful convictions. The review finds that knowledge about the prevalence and causes of these serious miscarriages of justice remains limited and mixed at best. Chapter 2 focuses on several “elephants in the courtroom” that have not garnered significant attention among wrongful conviction scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and activists. This section examines the deep linkages between race, society, the administration of justice, and wrongful convictions. Chapter 3 discusses the major themes that emerged during the listening sessions in an effort to better understand the problems victims and those who have been exonerated face during the review of post-conviction innocence claims and after the exoneration. The report concludes with policy recommendations to help address the most pressing issues.

This report builds on the listening sessions for victims or survivors of crimes that resulted in wrongful convictions during a three-day meeting hosted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Office for Victims of Crime, and external organizations. The three-day meeting allowed NIJ and its federal partners to hear directly from participants who had been victimized and revictimized due to errors of justice. On the third day, the federal observers met to discuss possible actions to be taken for research and practice. The report contains three chapters: Chapter 1 reviews 100 years of scholarship on wrongful convictions, ranging from early case studies of exonerations to more recent scientific analyses of wrongful convictions. The review finds that knowledge about the prevalence and causes of these serious miscarriages of justice remains limited and mixed at best. Chapter 2 focuses on several “elephants in the courtroom” that have not garnered significant attention among wrongful conviction scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and activists. This section examines the deep linkages between race, society, the administration of justice, and wrongful convictions. Chapter 3 discusses the major themes that emerged during the listening sessions in an effort to better understand the problems victims and those who have been exonerated face during the review of post-conviction innocence claims and after the exoneration. The report concludes with policy recommendations to help address the most pressing issues. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2023. 64p.

By Akhi Johnson, Stephen Roberts, Erin Ross, et al. 

The reform prosecution movement faces a critical moment. With the nationwide uptick in violent crime, reform prosecutors face unprecedented attacks: legislation to limit their discretion, politicians seeking to remove them from office, and demands for recall elections. The movement has weathered the storm, but reform prosecutors need continued support in pursuing agendas aligned with the communities that elected them, and the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) is well positioned to help them do so. In 2017, Vera launched the Reshaping Prosecution initiative in response to a wave of reform prosecutors winning office across the country. Reform prosecutors ran campaigns promising a systemic approach to pursuing justice, and Reshaping Prosecution sought to help them transform those promises into measurable policy changes. Vera piloted an engagement with St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner and her office from 2017 to 2019 that contributed to significant gains for the city. Gleaning lessons learned from that pilot, Vera launched a request for proposal process to select new partners. Vera selected each office based on a vetting process that included the district attorney’s demonstrated commitment to pursuing reforms, community support for reform efforts, sufficient staff capacity to work with the Vera team, and adequate data systems to allow an analysis of office practices. After receiving 14 applications, Vera selected six partners: Boulder County, Colorado; Contra Costa County, California; DeKalb County, Georgia; Ingham County, Michigan; Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Suffolk County, Massachusetts. This report describes Vera’s partnerships with each jurisdiction to take a systemic approach to justice by examining racial disparities and collaborating with the offices and their communities to develop solutions. These partnerships faced significant challenges, beginning with the pandemic, which halted work in the early stages; the racial justice movement in the summer of 2020 and its unique impacts on each jurisdiction; and pushback from opponents of change.   

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 40p.

By  Alissa Pollitz Worden, Kaitlin Moloney, et al.

New York’s groundbreaking 2019 bail reforms aimed to curtail pretrial detention, diminish the role of finances in release decisions, and tackle racial disparities in pretrial outcomes. This study is the first to examine pretrial decision-making in New York’s under-examined Town & Village Justice Courts, addressing a knowledge gap in public understanding and serving as a companion to related research on the topic. This report was authored by DCJ’s partners at The John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety.

1.     Increased Pretrial Release Under Bail Reform:

• Higher percentage of Justice Court cases released without bail for misdemeanors (82% in 2018 vs. 93% in 2021) and nonviolent felonies (59% in 2018 vs. 71% in 2021).

2.     Absence of Racial Disparities in Release Rates:

• Release rates were similar across racial and ethnic groups throughout the study period (both pre- and post-reform).

3.     No Progress Towards Affordable Bail:

• Bail amounts did not become more affordable, and people did not become more likely to post bail, after the reforms went into effect (echoing prior Data Collaborative for Justice research on City and District Courts across the State).

4.     Justice Courts vs. City Courts from the Same Counties:

• Justice Courts released people at higher rates than City Courts both pre- and post-reform. By 2021, less than 7% of people charged with misdemeanors were detained in the Justice Courts compared to 11% in urban City Courts and 13% in small City Courts from the same counties.

Albany, NY:  John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc., 2024. 41p.

By Julius Yam 

Authoritarianism has significant implications for how judges should discharge their duties. How should judges committed to constitutionalism conduct themselves when under authoritarian pressure? To answer this question,the article proposes a two-step adjudicative framework, documents a variety of judicial strategies, and proposes how principles and strategies can and should be incorporated into the framework in different scenarios. The first step of the adjudicative framework involves judges identifying the ‘formal legal position’ while blindfolding themselves to extra-legal factors (such as potential authoritarian backlash). In the second step, depending on the level of risk incurred by maintaining the formal legal position, judges should lift the blindfold to check whether, and if so how, the formal legal position should be supplemented with or adjusted by judicial strategies. Through this analysis, the article offers a guide to judicial reasoning under authoritarianism 

Modern Law Review Limited.(2023) 00(0) MLR 

By Colette Barry, Chalen Westaby, Mark Coen, Niamh Howlin

Judges are required to suppress and manage their own emotions as well as those of other court users and staff in their everyday work. Previous studies have examined the complex emotional labour undertaken by judges, but there is limited research on the emotion management performed by judges in their interactions with jurors. Drawing on a qualitative study of judge–jury relations in criminal trials in Ireland, we illustrate how judges learn and habituate emotional labour practices through informal and indirect processes. Judges described managing their emotions to demonstrate impartiality and objectivity. Their accounts also underline the importance of balancing presentations of neutrality with empathy, as well as being mindful of the potential emotional toll of jury service on jurors.

Journal of Law and Society Volume 50, Issue 4 p. 477-499

By U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance

This article provides details about Louisiana’s Orleans Reentry Court Program (ORCP), which originated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola from a desire to equip inmates with vocational, educational, and other skills that could lead to gainful employment and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The document describes the requirements of the in-jail portion, which involves participants being mentored by other inmates, typically those who are serving life sentences; it also provides details of the probation portion of ORCP. The document notes that after ORCP had been established, one of the program founders recognized that participants suffering from opioid use disorder were lacking the necessary services to maintain their recovery and successfully complete the program. In order to address that, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court applied for and received a fiscal year 2018 Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program grant, which introduced an enhanced substance abuse treatment aspect, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) services, and more wraparound case management services into the existing reentry court model. The discussion of lessons learned reviews what Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP) covers, and the importance of strategically leveraging available resources.

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2020. 4p.

By Christopher M. Bellas

This Article features the many factors that influence jurors' decision making in trials involving police use of excessive force. First, there is a discussion of what exactly police use of force is and how much exists. Second, there is a review of the relevant case law regarding police use of force that focuses primarily on the doctrine of qualified immunity (a code that affords police protection from being sued, most often under 18 U.S.C. § 1983). Third, in those rare police use of excessive force trials, the final decision regarding the liability of the defendant most often rests with a jury. Because the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution states one is to be tried by a jury of one's peers, which comes from the community, I investigate the importance of community relations with the criminal justice system, in particular policing, and how these relationships shape a potential jury pool. Finally, I assess the psychology behind juror decision making and its impact in police use of force trials regarding the psychological schema already impressed on jurors prior to rendering verdicts or that could color or negate their interpretation of the evidence presented at trial.

73(3) Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 895 (2023)

By Lisa Bailey Vavonese and Alysha Hall

Are public defenders the answer hiding in plain sight? Imagine that you are arrested and charged with a crime. You likely have a picture in your mind of how your first interactions with the police, your attorney, and the judge should go— interactions that are fair and just and protect your rights. The picture we paint next is that story. It is simple yet, to many, unfamiliar. We could have told the version that is true for so many people charged with a crime—a story of injustice and unfairness, a story so familiar it feels unchangeable. Instead, what follows is a thought experiment, a sadly unrepresentative one.  

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2023. 34p.

By National Institute of Justice, Office for Access to Justice

"Two-thirds of states (34) do not have full statewide oversight of public defense, meaning they do not set standards or monitor whether people receive counsel in all cases where they have a right to it."

In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office for Access to Justice (ATJ), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored a report on public defense system models in recognition of the 60th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the right to counsel to indigent persons charged with felonies in state courts. Researchers conducted a national scan of the public defense service models used in state, local, and tribal adult, trial-level, criminal cases. The report addresses the prevalence of different models, factors contributing to how jurisdictions select models, and variations in outcomes associated with each model. The report found that 16 states have a commission and/or statewide defender program overseeing public defense services, while in 34 there are gaps in state oversight. States need a mechanism for monitoring and supporting access to quality public defense counsel. States also need to ensure that the people overseeing and administering public defense do not have professional conflicts of interest. Finally, defender systems need meaningful input on practice and policy from people who have been represented by public defenders or been impacted by the criminal justice system. Recent reform efforts have resulted in more states creating oversight commissions and shifting to greater use of state funds to provide access to quality counsel and public defense delivery methods. Experts recommend states collect data on the percentage of people who enter uncounseled guilty pleas and on defendant characteristics not limited to race and ethnicity to ascertain whether equitable access to counsel is available. Findings are based on interviews with experts and a review and synthesis of publicly available material; the report is a national and current scan of public defense models and is intended to complement research based on more rigorous statistical surveys and program evaluations that may be dated or limited in coverage of jurisdictions. 

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2023. 87p.

By Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Mission in Kosovo
Since 1999, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (“OSCE”) Mission in Kosovo has held a pivotal role in monitoring the justice system in Kosovo for compliance with fair trial and international human rights standards. Trial monitoring is conducted by OSCE personnel in courts across Kosovo, focusing on identifying systemic issues affecting the justice system. The OSCE is concerned that the Kosovo judicial system is not adequately exercising its criminal calendaring authority. The caseload challenges facing the Basic Courts of Kosovo are staggering. During the first three months of 2023, the Basic Courts presided over 46,852 criminal cases: of those 40,707 were inherited and 6,145 cases were newly filed.1 However, only 5,833 cases were resolved leaving 41,019 pending at the end of the three month reporting period. Despite these circumstances, courts2 regularly fail to schedule criminal trials on consecutive or uninterrupted days. This practice exacerbates court backlogs, is an inefficient use of judicial resources, and ultimately creates a barrier to justice. This report analyzes the issue of criminal case backlogs and delays, which is a widespread problem in Kosovo that negatively affects access to justice and the efficient administration of justice. Specifically, the report focuses on how systemic criminal case management practices relating to scheduling trials over a prolonged period of time aggravate criminal case backlogs. The report is based on the direct field monitoring conducted by OSCE staff of criminal hearings observed in 2023. Its purpose is to make actionable recommendations to the relevant judicial system actors in order to improve criminal case management at the trial stage.
Vienna: OSCE, 2023. 16p.

By Adam I. Biener  

  Introduction The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA), a non-profit organization composed of US prosecutors, conducted a survey to understand the prevalence of and factors associated with case backlogs. Backlogs occur when a large number of cases are pending before the court for a longer period than typically experienced and/or a period longer than prescribed by the court. In a survey of 50 of the largest prosecutors’ offices conducted by APA in 2020, 14 responding offices reported just under 9,000 cases awaiting trial on average. 1 Following court disruptions due to COVID-19, there was an average increase of 5,565 cases per office, a 62% increase. Case backlogs can occur when the caseload per individual prosecuting attorney rises holding all other productive capability constant. In practice, the level of staffing (measured by caseload per attorney) is extremely varied.2 Further, models of prosecution vary across offices3 and different models can require a different mix of attorney specialties.4 Despite this complexity, office staffing is very idiosyncratic and not often tied to per attorney caseloads1, which can result in significant and potentially burdensome individual caseloads.3 Excessive caseloads for individual attorneys can result in longer case processing time, a greater risk for decision-making errors, increased plea bargains and dismissals, career burnout, and employee turnover. 6 Funding shocks have likely exacerbated the size of individual attorney caseloads over the past 20 years. The great recession following the financial crisis in 2008 reduced state budgets, employment, and payroll, shrinking the resources available to meet staffing and resource requests from prosecutors’ offices,5 leading to rising prosecutor workloads and stagnating or shrinking budgets.6 The expectations of prosecutors and their obligations when working cases have evolved significantly since 2007 due to changing legal requirements and new technologies. Victims’ rights laws, which require additional engagement with victims, increase the amount of time spent on person-involved cases (e.g. CA Prop 9 in 20087 ). There are presently Open Discovery laws in 46 states, up from roughly a third of states in 2004, 8 that increase the requirements for timely evidence collection. Body-worn cameras have become more commonplace for law enforcement, as nearly 50% of 15,238 general-purpose law enforcement agencies had body-worn cameras in 2016.9 Video evidence generated by body-worn cameras are more labor-intensive to review, extending the amount of labor hours required to prepare a case. Additionally, the demand for specialized attorneys to review cases as part of conviction review/integrity units, 10 while improving the equitable administration of justice, can potentially strain limited staffing resources. All of these staffing and resource constraints were tested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which put unusual demands on offices to continue their essential functions despite health concerns and court closures. While many offices were able to adopt new technologies to maintain their functioning, these pivots did not alleviate the rising caseloads and work burdens on individual prosecutors

Washington, DC: The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA) , 2024. 19p.

By Meredith Rossner and Helen Taylor

Restorative justice is an idea and a practice that has had a significant impact on criminology over the past four decades and has proliferated throughout the criminal justice system. Yet from the beginning of this movement, there have been worries that the mainstreaming of restorative justice will lead to its dilution, or even corruption, and undermine its transformative potential. Developing alongside the growing institutionalization of restorative justice has been a transformative justice movement that has arisen from larger movements for racial and gender justice, drawing on similar foundational values to restorative justice. This review interrogates the relationship between restorative and transformative justice by examining a flourishing of ideas and experiments at the margins of the restorative justice movement in three key areas—responses to racial injustice, sexual violence, and environmental harm—and finds that restorative justice has the capacity to work at multiple levels to respond to harm, transform relationships, and prevent future injustices.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 357 - 381

By Valerie Jenness and Alexis Rowland

A growing body of research reveals that transgender people are disproportionately in contact with the criminal legal system, wherein they experience considerable discrimination, violence, and other harms. To better understand transgender people's involvement in this system, this article synthesizes research from criminology, transgender studies, and related fields as well as empirical findings produced outside of academe, to conceptualize a “transgender criminal legal system nexus.” This article examines historical and contemporary criminalization of transgender people; differential system contact and attendant experiences associated with police contact, judicial decision-making, and incarceration; and pathways to system involvement for transgender people. The analytic focus is on cultural logics related to institutionalized conceptualizations of gender, discriminatory people-processing in various domains of the criminal legal system, and institutionally produced disparities for transgender people involved in the criminal legal system, especially transgender women of color. The article concludes with a discussion of directions for future research, including a focus on administrative violence, organizational sorting, intersectionality, and measurement challenges.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 283 - 309

By Hedwig Lee

I describe how cultural and structural racism operate the entire contemporary American criminal justice system via five features: devaluation of certain human lives, ubiquitous adaptation, networked structure, perceived neutrality, and temporal amnesia. I draw from specific historical and contemporary examples in policing, courts, and corrections to further emphasize the foundational nature of racism and its role in shaping racial/ethnic inequities not just in relationship to criminal justice outcomes but also in relationship to health, economic, and social well-being.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 233 - 255

By Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Amy Gallagher, Deborah Azrael , and Matthew Miller 

Little is known about the frequency and features of firearm carrying among adult handgun owners in the United States. In fact, over the past 30 years, only a few peer-reviewed national surveys, conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2015, have provided even the most basic information about firearm carrying frequency.1–4 Since the first of these surveys, reasons offered by firearm owners for why they own firearms have shifted from hunting and sports shooting toward personal protection. In 1994, for example, 46% of firearm owners reported owning firearms for protection2; by 2015, that number had reached 65%,5 and, by 2019, it had reached 73%.6 As personal protection became the predominant motivation for owning firearms, handgun ownership increased disproportionately from 64% in 1994 to 83% in 2021.2,7

These trends have been accompanied by a loosening of state laws governing who can carry handguns in public places. State laws regulating concealed handgun carrying are typically divided into the following types: (1) permitless: no permit is required; (2) shall issue: the issuing authority is required to grant a permit to anyone who meets certain minimal statutory requirements with no or limited discretion; (3) may issue: the issuing authority has substantial discretion to approve or deny a concealed carry permit to an applicant.8 In 1990, only 1 state allowed permitless handgun carry; at the time of this writing, that number had risen to 21.8

To our knowledge, the only contemporary national estimates of handgun carrying among US adults come from the National Firearms Survey in 2015 (NFS-2015). NFS-2015 found that 23.5% of adult handgun owners (9 million adults) had carried a loaded handgun on their person in the month before the survey; of those, 34.5% (3 million) had done so every day.4 Of handgun owners who carried, 4 in 5 carried primarily for protection, 4 in 5 had a concealed carry permit, 2 in 3 always carried concealed, and 1 in 10 always carried openly.4 The prevalence of handgun carrying was similar in states with permitless carry laws and states with shall issue carry laws. By contrast, the prevalence of carrying was notably lower in states with may issue carry laws.4

In the current study (NFS-2019), we used nationally representative survey data collected from July 30, 2019, to August 11, 2019, to update information pertaining to the proportion of handgun owners who carried a handgun over the previous month (and, of those, the fraction who carried daily), the characteristics of those who carried, and the prevalence of handgun carrying by handgun owners in states that did versus did not require a permit for concealed carrying at the time of the survey.

United States, American Journal of Public Health. 2022, 8pg

By Everytown for Gun Safety and Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions 

Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws create an opportunity to intervene and prevent firearm violence when there are warning signs that an individual poses a risk of harm to self or others. While ERPO laws are relatively new, a growing body of research demonstrates the potential for these laws to prevent firearm violence, particularly firearm suicide, and multiple victim/mass shootings. Interest in ERPO laws has increased in recent years, with 16 states having enacted these laws between 2018 and 2023. Implementation varies widely across and within states. As a result of strong ERPO implementation efforts in some jurisdictions, more information is now available for state and local leaders about how to implement and adapt ERPO laws for their own communities. In addition, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 included $750 million in new federal grant funding for states, some of which is designated to support ERPO implementation. To meet this moment, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions have partnered to compile this guide of the best available practices and promising approaches to effective implementation of extreme risk laws. These recommendations are informed by conversations with individuals who are pioneering ERPO implementation, in addition to the best practices shared at a December 2022 convening of ERPO leaders from around the country.   

New York: Everytown for Gun Safety. 2023, 52pg

By Andrew Willinger

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil court orders that temporarily prohibit gun purchase and possession by people who are behaving dangerously and at risk of committing imminent violence. As of September 2023, ERPOs are available in 21 states and the District of Columbia. This Article presents an overview of ERPO laws, the rationale behind their development, and a review and analysis that considers emerging constitutional challenges to these laws (under both the Second Amendment and due process protections) in the post-Bruen era. This Article notes that the presence of multiple constitutional challenges in many ERPOrelated cases has confused judicial analysis and argues that, especially in light of Bruen’s novel text, history, and tradition test, courts should be especially careful to clarify how cumulative-rights arguments are impacting their analysis. An examination of Second Amendment court decisions concerning another type of civil protection order, Domestic Violence Protection Orders, informs the approach used to further consider ERPO rights deprivation claims and the constitutionally relevant distinctions among different civil dispossession proceedings. The Article further considers the state of ERPO law in the context of the evolving evidence documenting the uptake and impact of ERPOs on gun violence in the United States, including a review of scholarship that seeks to  understand how ERPO statutes are being implemented and to determine whether the laws prevent interpersonal gun violence and suicide. Finally, this Article concludes with a commentary and set of recommendations to inform the practice and future scholarship of ERPO as a tool for preventing gun violence in the United States, in accord with constitutional protections in the post-Bruen age.

United States, Number 1 Public Health, History, and the Future Of Gun Regulation after Bruen. 2023, 64pg

By Rebecca Valek, Cassandra Crifasi, and Alex McCourt 

Gun violence rates in the U.S. have reached all-time highs in recent years.1 Overall, in 2022, more than 48,000 Americans died by guns.2 Since 2019, the rate of gun deaths in the U.S increased 21%.3 These increases in gun deaths have especially impacted young Americans.4 Between 2013 and 2022, rates of gun deaths among children and teens increased 87%.5 Nearly 4,600 American youth (aged 1–19) were killed by guns in 2022, fueled by increases in both homicide and suicide.6 Increased deaths have prompted Americans to call for legislative action.7 Despite the growth in dissatisfaction with U.S. gun laws and high levels of support for stricter gun legislation, some gun laws have become more permissive in the past two decades, particularly in states with Republican majorities.8 Supreme Court decisions have accelerated this shift, beginning with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, which expanded the understanding of the Second Amendment to include an individual right to own handguns for self-defense, and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, which held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.9 These decisions, along with the 2022 decision preventing states from requiring proper cause to obtain concealed carry licenses in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, have expanded gun rights and limited the abilities of state legislatures and Congress to regulate gun violence.10 John Feinblatt, president of the nonprofit gun violence prevention advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, described the Bruen decision as “out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures.”11 At a time when gun violence has become the leading cause of death of Americans under 20 years old, the successful enactment and implementation of such highly supported policy is essential.12 Public opinion can directly affect legislative and executive actions and, while the effect on the judiciary may be less clear, there is often a connection between public opinion and court decisions.13 Many scholars have noted a significant influence of public mood and public opinion on the decisions of the Supreme Court.14 The Supreme Court’s sociological legitimacy, a term used by legal scholars to refer to the public’s view and respect of the Court, depends largely on the extent to which the Court’s decisions align with public opinion.15 When the Court’s decisions are affected by public opinion to promote sociological legitimacy, the Court’s legal legitimacy — or its Justices’ consistent application of their preferred approach to interpreting the law — may be diminished.16 In Bruen, the majority of the justices adopted an approach that uses elements from originalism and textualism without adhering completely to either.17 The Bruen standard requires courts to evaluate gun laws by looking to text, history, and tradition to determine whether the law at issue is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”18 To date, very few courts have evaluated age-restrictive gun laws, but legislatures continue to adopt new gun laws and courts, including the Supreme Court, are hearing new Second Amendment-related challenges.19 Public opinion will play a role in this process. The views of the public — both nationwide and in specific constituencies — may affect what gun policies are introduced and enacted by legislators, what laws are challenged in court, and what decisions courts reach in those challenges. In addition, as courts continue to grapple with Bruen and its standards, public opinion — whether historical or modern — may shape how judges think about history and tradition. Age-related gun laws may be of particular interest as rates of gun violence among youth have elevated and government officials evaluate existing laws and explore new laws in their search for solutions.    

United States, Fordham Urb. L.J. 117. 2023, 40pg