Legal Opinion · Concurrence

C.J.L.G., a Juvenile Male v. Jefferson Sessions

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 29, 2018No. 16-73801Published

1ConcurrenceOwens, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority opinion and its narrow scope. It holds that the Due Process Clause does not mandate government-funded counsel for C.J.L.G., an accompanied minor. The opinion does not hold, or even discuss, whether the Due Process Clause mandates counsel for unaccompanied minors. That is a different question that could lead to a different answer. See, e.g., Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 31-32, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (holding that whether the Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel is considered on a case-by-case basis); J.E.F.M. v. Lynch,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. LynchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API