PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 23, 2015
Prohibiting Detention of Youth Status Offenders Act of 2015
Amends the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, with respect to the detention of a juvenile status offender (a juvenile arrested for an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult) who violates a valid court order, to require the court placing such juvenile in detention to issue a written order that: (1) identifies the valid court order that the juvenile has violated; (2) specifies the factual basis for determining that there is reasonable cause to believe that the juvenile has violated such order; (3) includes findings of fact to support a determination that there is no appropriate less restrictive alternative available to placing the juvenile in a secure detention or correctional facility, with due consideration to the best interest of the juvenile; (4) specifies the length of time, not to exceed three days, that the juvenile may remain in such facility and includes a plan for the juvenile's release; and (5) may not be renewed or extended.
Requires that procedures be put in place to ensure that a juvenile held in a secure detention or correctional facility does not remain in such facility longer than three days or the length of time authorized by the court, or authorized under state law, whichever is shorter. Prohibits the detention of a juvenile more than once in any six-month period.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits, one year after the enactment of this Act, a state that receives a formula grant under the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention program from using a valid court order to place a juvenile status offender in a secure detention or correctional facility. Allows a state that demonstrates hardship to apply for a single one-year extension of time to comply with the requirement to eliminate such use of court orders.
People & committees
Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1850 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1850 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1850 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1850 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.