This material is general public information for educational purposes only. It should not be used as legal, financial, or tax advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it. Federal, state, and local rules may vary and may change over time. A qualified professional can review specific circumstances.
Key Facts
- Federal level: ABA Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B urged federal governments to support Youth or Teen Courts that use a nondiscriminatory peer-driven restorative justice process involving family members.
- State level: ABA Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B also urged state governments to support Youth or Teen Courts that divert youth from the formal consequences of juvenile court petitions and proceedings.
- National overview: The resolution’s summary explicitly names federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments as the addressed recipients.
- National overview: The resolution’s described approach centers on a nondiscriminatory peer-driven restorative justice process that involves family members.
- National overview: The resolution’s stated diversion goal targets formal juvenile justice steps such as petitions, adjudications, and juvenile justice sanctions.
- National overview: The ABA House of Delegates is the ABA policy-making body and meets twice each year at Annual and Midyear Meetings.
- National overview: A separate ABA item lists Revised Resolutions 107A and 107B filed February 1, 2013 under Ethics 20/20, creating a “107B” naming collision that this archive recovery flags.
Archive recovery often starts with a plain problem: a legacy URL is no longer reviewable, so a historical item can’t be verified directly. For source, the research record instead relied on ABA-maintained summary materials to preserve what the archived item signaled—without treating it as current law—an approach consistent with other archive recovery work like Access to justice forum agreement archive recovery.
- What this archive recovery can and cannot confirm
- How the ABA House of Delegates fits in
- What ABA Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B (2011) urged about Youth or Teen Courts
- The “107B” naming collision this archive recovery had to flag
- Why the wording “urges” matters when reading the resolution summary
- Which government levels the 2011 resolution summary names
- Limits on current legal status based on the verified record
- Sources
What this archive recovery can and cannot confirm
This write-up focuses on the historical policy framing reflected in ABA-maintained summaries of a “Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B” from 2011. It does not reconstruct the full text of the missing legacy page at abanow.org/2011/01/107b/, and it avoids filling gaps with assumptions about federal or state requirements for Youth or Teen Courts.
How the ABA House of Delegates fits in
The ABA House of Delegates serves as the ABA’s policy-making body and meets twice each year at the ABA Annual and Midyear Meetings. That governance structure matters for archive recovery because it explains where “resolution” language comes from—ABA policy-making—rather than from statutes, regulations, or court orders. The ABA describes this function on its House of Delegates page (see ABA House of Delegates policy-making body).
What ABA Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B (2011) urged about Youth or Teen Courts
ABA’s disability-resolutions materials include a summary labeled “2011 * Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B”. In that summary, ABA states that the resolution urges governments to create and provide support for Youth or Teen Courts that use a nondiscriminatory peer-driven restorative justice process involving family members.
The same ABA summary describes the diversion purpose in concrete terms: it aims to divert youth from the formal consequences of juvenile court petitions, proceedings, adjudications, or juvenile justice sanctions. In other words, the resolution’s subject ties Youth or Teen Courts to a specific theory of change—reducing involvement with formal juvenile court steps through a peer-and-family restorative model (as described in ABA Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B summary).
The “107B” naming collision this archive recovery had to flag
A practical archive-recovery issue appears when multiple ABA listings share similar identifiers. The ABA also maintains an index of House of Delegates filings for Ethics 20/20, including an entry titled “2013 House of Delegates Revised Resolutions 107A & 107B (Filed February 1, 2013)”. That is a different procedural listing than the 2011 Midyear Meeting resolution summary described above, so archive recovery has to treat “107B” as potentially referring to more than one item.
| ABA item label | What the maintained ABA summary/entry shows | Why it matters for archive recovery |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B | Urges support for Youth or Teen Courts using nondiscriminatory peer-driven restorative justice involving family members | Anchors the historical “teen court” theme to the 2011 Midyear resolution summary |
| 2013 Revised Resolutions 107A & 107B (Filed Feb. 1, 2013) | Listed within the Ethics 20/20 House of Delegates filings index | Prevents incorrectly merging a 2013 ethics filing entry into the 2011 Youth or Teen Courts resolution narrative |
This separation follows the maintained ABA references, including the Ethics 20/20 index entry shown in Ethics 20/20 House of Delegates filings for Revised 107A and 107B.
Why the wording “urges” matters when reading the resolution summary
The ABA’s maintained summary for Midyear Meeting Resolution 107B uses “urges” language directed at governments. That choice of verb is a reader-relevant signal: it frames the resolution as a policy call and advocacy statement, not as a statute, regulation, or court ruling that operates as binding legal authority. Archive recovery therefore keeps the historical “what ABA advocated for” framing, rather than converting the policy language into a claim about federal or state legal obligations.
Which government levels the 2011 resolution summary names
ABA’s summary expressly identifies the kinds of government recipients addressed by the “urges” language. It includes federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, which is a helpful boundary for understanding the historical document’s scope: the resolution targets government support and implementation at multiple levels, while the underlying operational details of Youth or Teen Courts remain a matter of local or state practice rather than something this archive recovery can confirm from the accessible ABA summaries alone.
Limits on current legal status based on the verified record
Because this archive recovery could not review the missing legacy page content directly, it does not attempt to verify whether any particular current statute, regulation, or enforcement posture now governs Youth or Teen Courts in the way the 2011 policy statement describes. This article instead stays close to what the maintained ABA sources prove: the ABA House of Delegates policy-making role, the 2011 Midyear Resolution 107B summary (including the diversion and restorative-justice descriptors), and the existence of a different 2013 “107B” listing tied to Ethics 20/20.
