By: Farron Eckhoff
Published: May 7, 2026
In all fifty states, and the District of Columbia (“DC”), a person is not legally an “adult,” nor afforded the “rights and responsibilities of adulthood” until at least age 18.[1] The brain’s frontal lobe, particularly the pre-frontal cortex, does not reach maturity until well after age 18.[2] The human brain is still developing until around the age of 32.[3] In a myriad of cases, the Supreme Court has established and upheld that “children are constitutionally different from adults in their level of culpability,”[4] which should be considered in charging decisions. Yet, in all fifty states, and the District of Columbia, children can be charged as if they were adults.[5]
In most states, juvenile court has original jurisdiction, which can be waived to try a minor in adult court—this is called a judicial waiver—and it exists in DC for certain offenses.[6] DC is one of only twelve jurisdictions in the U.S. where a prosecutor has complete discretion to decide whether to directly charge a child as an adult (known as “direct file” statutes).[7] In DC, prosecutors have more unchecked power than prosecutors in nearly every state to send children to adult court.[8] DC law allows federal prosecutors to automatically charge 16- and 17-year-olds as adults for violent offenses, including murder, rape, burglary, and armed robbery.[9] There is no way for a judge to undo the prosecutor’s decision to bring these charges in criminal court. In DC, reverse judicial waiver does not exist for direct-file charges, meaning that there is no judicial review available to reverse the prosecutor’s decision and send youth back to the juvenile system.[10]
Juvenile crimes that are transferred to the adult system first undergo an individual hearing, where contested evidence can be presented prior to transfer.[11] In contrast, children who are automatically charged as adults via direct file statutes have no opportunity to be heard on their background and circumstance, which violates due process.[12] Removing youth from juvenile court deprives them of a liberty interest far greater than ordinary charging discretion.[13] Adult court is not simply a different venue—it carries substantively different consequences and risks than juvenile court.
In 2017, juvenile justice reform legislation aimed at trying children as children went into effect and led to significant resentencing provisions.[14] But, DC’s resentencing efforts for young offenders are not enough. Additional reform is needed to keep DC youth in the juvenile system. In DC, youth charged as adults are detained in adult facilities while awaiting trial.[15] Adult incarceration facilities are not equipped to protect against additional risks or provide adequate support for children who are charged and detained in the adult system.[16]
Public opinion has a lot to do with the responses to juvenile crime.[17] Recently, Donald Trump and his administration have pushed to lower the age for charging children as adults to 14-years-old.[18] The direction of these efforts is backwards—the focus of DC’s juvenile justice system should be on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Due to their age and brain plasticity, children are great prospects for rehabilitation and reform.[19] DC youth should remain in the juvenile system, where they can be held accountable for their crimes, and rehabilitated in the safest and least restrictive setting—this produces the best outcome for both youth and society.
[1] See Adult, Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adult (last accessed Jan. 25, 2026) (noting that exceptions exist in Alabama (19), Nebraska (19), and Mississippi (21)); Legal Age, Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_age (last accessed Jan. 25, 2026); see also Child, Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/child (last accessed Jan. 24, 2026).
[2] See Keri S. Rosch & Stewart Mostofsky, Development of the Frontal Lobe, in 163 Handbook of Clinical Neurology 351 (2019).
[3] See id.; A. Mousley, see also R.A.I. Bethlehem, et al., Topological Turning Points Across the Human Lifespan, Nature Communications 16:10055, 1 (2025); see also F. Lewsey, Scientists Identify Ages of the Human Brain Over A Lifetime, (Univ. of Cambridge, 2025) (highlighting that brain development peaks in the early thirties, with adolescence ending and adulthood beginning at age 32, on average).
[4] See Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 213 (2016); see also Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 571 (2005) (noting that level of culpability should be considered in sentencing; thus finding the death penalty unconstitutional for offenses committed before age 18); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 476-77 (2012) (holding mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole to be unconstitutional for juvenile offenders).
[5] See Child, supra note 1 (noting that the words “child(ren),” “youth,” and “juvenile(s)” are used interchangeably throughout this piece to refer to people under 18); see also Child Rights Int’l Network, Art. 1: Definition of the Child, Child Rts. Int’l Network, https://archive.crin.org/en/home/rights/convention/articles/article-1-definition-child.html; see also Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 1, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, 2.
[6] Compare D.C. Code § 16-2301(3)(A) (2026) (noting offenses that result in automatic adult prosecution); with D.C. Code §§ 16-2307(a), (d)(1)(A), (e) (2026) (noting offenses that may result in transfer to the adult system); see also H.B. 1295, 434th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2014) (highlighting Maryland’s law, which allows youth transferred to adult court to request a “reverse waiver” to be transferred back to juvenile court).
[7] See Juvenile Justice GPS, Jurisdictional Boundaries: Compare Transfer Provisions (2016), Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics (JJGPS) http://www.jjgps.org/jurisdictional-boundaries#compare-transfer-provisions?age=-1&action=2&year=2016&state=52&offense=-1 (last accessed Jan. 25, 2026) (noting that Vermont and Virginia have ended prosecutorial discretion to bring charges in adult court since 2016, which is the year of the data reflected in this table).
[8] See id. (noting that Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and DC are the only places in the U.S. where prosecutorial discretion to bring charges in adult court exists, but reverse waivers do not).
[9] See D.C. Code § 16-2301(3)(A) (2026) (noting direct-file offenses under DC law).
[10] Id.; see Juvenile Justice GPS, supra note 7.
[11] See D.C. Code §§ 16-2307(e)-(h) (noting that factors such as age, nature of the current offense, extent and nature of prior delinquency, mental condition, response to past treatment efforts, resources available, and potential rehabilitative effect are considered when determining “whether it is in the interest of the public welfare to transfer for criminal prosecution”).
[12] See U.S. Const. amend. IV (emphasizing that Due Process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government deprives someone of a liberty interest, and deciding to charge children as adults without providing an individualized hearing short-circuits this requirement).
[13] See id.; see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976) (weighing private and government interests under the Eldridge test; noting that the liberty interest affected and the risk of additional deprivation without procedures to account for age, maturity, or rehabilitation potential outweigh the government interests of administrative efficiency and being “tough on crime”).
[14] See Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016, D.C. Law 21-238 (Apr. 4, 2017) (noting DC’s blanket elimination of life without parole sentences for offenses committed before age 18); see also D.C. Code § 24-403.03 (2026) (pushing sentencing reconsideration for individuals who committed offenses before age 25).
[15] See Alex Peerman, et al., Capital City Correction: Reforming DC’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 12 (Prison Pol’y Initiative May 2014), https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/Capital_City_Correction.pdf (citing FOIA Response Juv. 2007 – 2012 (D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Dec. 23, 2013)) (noting that 541 DC youth were tried as adults and held at CTF, an adult correctional facility); see also New Report Examines Youth Incarcerated in Adult Jails, Children’s Defense Fund (Aug. 28, 2018), https://www.childrensdefense.org/new-report-examines-youth-incarcerated-in-adult-jails/ (noting youth in adult jails are at higher risk of sexual abuse by jail staff and other inmates).
[16] See New Report Examines Youth Incarcerated in Adult Jails, supra note 15 (noting youth are thirty-six times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than a juvenile detention facility, and mortality rates in adult jails for children under seventeen are nearly twice that of young adults (18 to 24-year-olds)).
[17] See generally Josh Rovner, Youth Justice by the Numbers, The Sent’g Project, 1 (2025); Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy?, 50(2) Ct. Rev.: The J. of the Am. Judges Ass’n, 70 (2014).
[18] Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these “minors” as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14, Truth Soc. (Aug. 5, 2025, 4:13 PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114977985620971126; see D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2025, H.R. 4922, 119th Cong. (2025) (commonly referred to as the “DC Crimes Act of 2025”), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4922 (seeking to limit the definition of a youth offender to people under age 18, rather than age 25).
[19] See Steinberg, supra note 17, at 72 (noting adolescent brains’ heightened neuroplasticity; and that “brain changes that take place during adolescence are probably driven to a great extent by nurture and may therefore be modifiable by experience”).