ACLU of Puerto Rico asks Supreme Court to halt use of Law 54 against minors

San Juan, P.R. – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Puerto Rico has asked the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, through an amicus curiae brief, to overturn a protection order issued under Law 54 against a 16-year-old girl, based on events arising from a dating relationship between two private school students.

In its brief, the ACLU of Puerto Rico explained that applying Law No. 54 of 1989—a statute designed to address domestic violence between adults—to intimate relationships between minors constitutes an arbitrary and capricious use of the law and turns this important remedy into an instrument of oppression wielded by adults. The organization emphasized that, in this case, the protection order caused one of the teenagers to miss months of in-person classes and school activities, and subjected both parties to a judicial process that is unnecessary and ill-suited to their age.

“The message sent when a criminal law designed for adults is used to intervene in the intimate lives of teenagers, without evidence of actual violence, is that the statute can be used arbitrarily as a tool for punishment,” said Fermín Arraiza Navas, Legal Director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico. “In cases like this, the State ends up punishing the emotional exploration and identity of young people who are just beginning to understand who they are—and it does so in a way that can mark them for life in their school records and in their emotional well-being,” the attorney stressed.

The amicus filed yesterday, Tuesday, explains that an analysis of the legislative history and the text of Law 54 shows that the intent of the Legislative Assembly was to address domestic violence in the context of intimate relationships between adults, not minors. Even if one assumed that the law could apply to adolescents, the ACLU of Puerto Rico argued that, in this case, the basic requirements for issuing a protection order were not met. Nor was there evidence of conduct comparable to the cases in which the courts have upheld this type of remedy.

The brief further recalled that courts in Puerto Rico and the United States have clearly recognized that minors are also holders of constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, to their free personal development, and to live free from discrimination. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, the Bill of Rights of the Child, and the Declaration of Rights and Duties of Minors underscore the State’s duty to protect the dignity and full development of children and young people.

In the specific case, the organization argued that the lower courts failed to adequately examine the full context of the relationship between the teenagers, or the role of the responsible adults. The amicus pointed out that the anxiety and fear expressed by one of the minors in her text messages were closely tied to her fear of her own mother’s reaction upon learning of the relationship, more than to any pattern of abuse by the other girl. However, the Court of First Instance unduly limited the efforts of defense counsel to present evidence on that point, affecting the right to due process and to confrontation.

“When the system’s response is to silence those uncomfortable questions—such as what role the adult plays in her daughter’s suffering—and instead place the blame squarely on a minor, the court fails in its parens patriae duty,” added Arraiza Navas.

The amicus specified that there are specific legal mechanisms to address alleged harassment or violence in the school context between students, such as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which requires educational institutions to adopt policies, complaint protocols, and support measures to address discrimination and violence on the basis of sex, including dating violence between students.

“What these students needed was support, accompaniment, and well-designed school protocols, not a punitive protection order that severs their ties with the school and subjects them to a process that is not even designed for their stage of life,” Arraiza Navas noted. “The indiscriminate use of Law 54 in these contexts risks repeating a pattern of punishment toward LGBTIQ+ youth and sending the message that loving or exploring an intimate relationship between people of the same sex is something that warrants the State’s punitive intervention. That is unacceptable.”