In this case, the plaintiff's position was the fundamental principal of the 'presumption of innocence' and the unconstitutionality of pretrial detention for any reason other than guaranteeing appearance of the accused at trial. A further concern was the absence of any standards or limitations affecting the decision to detain, e.g., a child could be detained regardless of the seriousness or insignificance of the offense. In overturning lower court findings, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the New York pretrial detention scheme on three major grounds: legitimate State interests served by preventive detention, differences between children and adults and the respective justice systems, and the existence of due process safeguards in the New York scheme. While affirming the use of pretrial detention, the Court also articulated standards for its use. These include that detention be of limited duration, that the juvenile have a right to counsel, that reasons for and facts underlying detention be stated, and that the conditions of confinement promote the safety and welfare of the youth. Standards developed by several jurisdictions in response to Schall are described. Appendixes include American Bar Association, Tennessee, and Utah juvenile preventive detention standards and provisions. 2 footnotes.