logo
Some federal defense lawyers not getting paid for months as funding runs dry

Some federal defense lawyers not getting paid for months as funding runs dry

Chicago Tribune24-07-2025
Private defense attorneys who represent indigent clients in federal court are not getting paid for nearly three months — until Oct. 1.
The U.S. Courts announced on July 3 that federal funding for the Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys — the private lawyers that pick up public defender cases — ran out of money.
The length of time is unprecedented, lawyers said. In the past, funding gaps weren't usually longer than a few weeks.
The culprit? Congress only appropriated the same amount of funding as fiscal year 2024 — leaving it with an estimated $116 million shortfall it couldn't fill, according to a release.
Local lawyers who spoke with the Post-Tribune said they will continue to take cases and minimize the effect it has on their clients' rights.
Putting off cases is 'not an option,' defense lawyer Susan Severtson said, adding she hasn't seen this occur in her 35 years working in law. People are presumed innocent, and she will continue to request experts for her cases.
'I feel fortunate I can ride it out,' she said. 'Lots of new attorneys can't do that.'
If left unaddressed, the problem could spiral in the next fiscal year, forcing the judiciary to add $185 million to its budget request, U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, told a U.S. House subcommittee in May.
That month, the judiciary asked Congress for $1.8 billion next year for public defenders, including covering back payments to private attorneys — a nearly 22% increase.
The Post-Tribune reached out to U.S. Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government for comment.
In an email sent accidentally to a reporter, a Joyce aide said they had 'increased' public defender money, but chose to prioritize and 'fully fund' court security to protect judges and cybersecurity.
It's unclear what, if any, funding increase public defenders may see.
The U.S. House of Representatives has adjourned until September after House Speaker Mike Johnson said he wanted avoid votes to release files from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, according to media reports.
About 90% of federal defendants can't afford to pay a lawyer. Across the country, about 60% of cases are covered by a federal public defenders' office, while 40% are covered by a panel attorney.
Most of the 12,000 private attorneys in the U.S. picking up these cases are typically self-employed, or work for a small law firm. The federal government pays them when the case is over.
It's not a cost they typically can afford to bear, Adam Tavitas said, the CJA panel attorney representative for the U.S. Northern District of Indiana. The lawyers have to turn around and pay paralegals, translators, case investigators and expert witnesses, etc.
About 15 lawyers in the Northern District of Indiana in Hammond are affected, he said, with about the same each in its South Bend and Fort Wayne offices.
'Obviously, just because you are charged with a crime, it doesn't mean you are guilty,' Tavitas said. 'Every person deserves good, competent representation.'
If they go into October and beyond — into the next fiscal year — with an even deeper funding hole, those lawyers could face up to six months without pay, said Jerry Flynn, Executive Director of the Northern Federal Community Defender program — who oversees career federal public defenders.
It's unlikely that judges or other officials would want that, he said.
The money will have to come from somewhere — that could mean potential staff cuts and/or higher caseloads for career public defenders, putting further strain on the system.
It could be a 'death spiral,' he said.
The Trump administration's priorities have included pursuing more death penalty cases and ramping up immigration enforcement. So far, there are no death penalty cases in the Northern District of Indiana, but they are anticipating there could be down the line, he said.
The biggest strains seem to be on border states with huge volumes of immigration cases, Flynn said. Media reports from New Mexico, for example, show some lawyers have stopped taking cases.
Indiana doesn't match those numbers, but he estimates immigration cases — mostly prosecuting people who have returned to the U.S. after they were deported — have increased by 2-3 times since Trump took office in January, totaling about 20 or 25 cases.
In the big picture, a funding shortfall could potentially leave death row inmates without representation, defendants in jail longer than necessary, or make a speedy trial not possible, according to a U.S. Courts release.
It also means it could be harder to recruit lawyers for the work in the future, if they don't know if they will get paid on time, Tavitas said. Or some could just quit.
Traditional public defender offices were unlikely to pick up the slack, as they are already understaffed and have been under a hiring freeze, Tavitas said. Flynn estimated the U.S. has lost 250-300 career public defenders over time, although locally the shortage isn't as urgent.
They take pride in what they do, Flynn said. Most of the Jan. 6 defendants, for example, relied on either career public defenders or panel attorneys — meaning the government picked up the tab.
'That's our job,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board

Boston Globe

time28 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board

Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. Advertisement So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. Advertisement 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. Advertisement State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Advertisement Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. Advertisement In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''

Blue states plan new tax hikes on wealthy residents in response to Trump's federal tax legislation
Blue states plan new tax hikes on wealthy residents in response to Trump's federal tax legislation

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Blue states plan new tax hikes on wealthy residents in response to Trump's federal tax legislation

Blue states around the U.S. are planning tax hikes on wealthy residents to bring in additional revenue through a variety of proposals, including one state's so-called "Taylor Swift tax." The moves come after the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) by President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress, which permanently extended many of the 2017 tax cuts and included other new tax relief provisions as well as spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid. Democrats argue these tax hike proposals are needed to help plug gaps in state budgets and offset any lost federal dollars for Medicaid and other programs. The state of Rhode Island enacted a new tax this summer that will impose a special levy on vacation homes valued at $1 million or more, which has become known as the "Taylor Swift tax" due to the music star owning a home in an affluent part of Westerly, Rhode Island, The Wall Street Journal reported. Taylor Swift: Here's How The Pop Superstar Achieved Billionaire Status Rhode Island's "Taylor Swift tax" imposes a tax of $2.50 for every $500 of assessed value above $1 million, which a analysis estimated would result in an additional $136,000 in property taxes on her luxury home in the Watch Hill neighborhood that's valued at $17 million. Read On The Fox Business App Montana wants to increase property taxes on non-primary residences, adopting a new reform that will reduce property tax rates for owner-occupied primary homes while hiking the rate to 1.9% for second homes or short-term rentals, with industrial properties also set to face higher levies. Lawmakers want to provide not only a tax break to about 230,000 homeowners, but incentivize owners of vacation properties or second homes to sell those properties to inject more inventory into a tight real estate market, reported. Mamdani's Rise In Nyc Mirrors Economic Flight To The South, Study Shows This spring, Maryland enacted a new tax policy that raises income tax rates on residents earning over $500,000 a year to narrow the state's budget deficit. Another state in the Northeast is also mulling a tax hike on wealthy residents, with lawmakers in Connecticut considering legislation that would raise income tax rates on individuals earning $250,000 or more, or twice that amount for couples, to help offset an anticipated decrease in federal funding. How Much Can People Save On Taxes By Moving To Florida? The state of Washington this spring passed a budget that will raise its capital gains tax from 7% to 9%, though the tax's structure excludes real estate sales and focuses on other transactions like those involving stocks, bonds or business interests. Washington doesn't have an income tax, and the state constitution prohibits one. Washington has in the past seen wealthy residents depart the state to avoid the high tax burden, such as when Amazon founder Jeff Bezos left for low-tax Florida. That phenomenon has occurred in other high-tax states, such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois, which have seen wealthy residents and corporations leave in favor of states with lower article source: Blue states plan new tax hikes on wealthy residents in response to Trump's federal tax legislation Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up
Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up

September is shaping up to be a big month for efforts to ban stock trading in Congress. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says she's going to try to force a vote via a discharge petition. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said he'd start pushing for a ban too. Get ready to hear a lot more about banning congressional stock trading. A top Trump administration official says he's going to start pushing for a ban. Two House Republicans are, in different ways, gearing up to force a vote on the issue. And all the while, lawmakers keep failing to report millions of dollars' worth of stock trades on time. "We've got to move," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said on Fox Business earlier this month, saying that while he had given House GOP leadership "grace" as they worked to get the "Big Beautiful Bill" through Congress, that time is now over. "I'm going to demand that we vote on this, this fall." It all comes after an explosive Senate hearing on a stock trading bill last month, where Republicans went after one another over whether President Donald Trump himself should be banned from trading stocks. That led to Trump branding Sen. Josh Hawley as "second-tier," though the Missouri Republican later told BI that he was able to smooth things over with Trump later. "He told me he wants a stock trading ban," Hawley said in July. "He remains committed to getting a stock trading ban, so we'll work with him to do that." Potential House drama over a 'discharge petition' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican known for challenging her own party's leadership, has said she'll start the process of forcing a vote on a stock trading ban when lawmakers return from the August recess. "I won't sit idly by while members of Congress trade stocks, especially those on committees with direct influence over relevant industries," Luna wrote on X last month. "That's corruption at its core, and it needs to stop." Luna has said she'll try to use what's known as a "discharge petition" to bring up a stock trading ban bill authored by Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Under that process, the bill would have to be brought to the House floor for a vote — with or without the support of House leaders — if Luna is able to collect signatures from 218 members, a majority of the 435 seats in the House. Not everyone who supports a stock trading ban is on board with Luna's approach. Roy, the co-sponsor of a different stock trading ban bill that has bipartisan support and has been around for years, told Fox Business that a discharge petition is "not the best way" to get it done. "I want the speaker, and Republicans, to control this," said Roy. "Republicans need to control the floor, do our job, bring this to a vote." Roy has been working with a bipartisan group that includes Democratic Reps. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to put forward a consensus stock trading ban bill. But after months of discussions, they have yet to release legislative text. That's led Luna to largely dismiss their effort. "Allegedly, there were 'talks' happening? With who?" Luna wrote on X on Thursday. "They were never going to bring a VOTE to the floor. I don't care if this upsets people." The Florida congresswoman's effort is worth taking seriously: she has used this legislative tool before to bring up a bill on proxy voting over the objections of Speaker Mike Johnson, bringing the House to a halt for a full week in April. Lawmakers keep reporting trades late Johnson has said he's supportive of a stock trading ban — though he has "sympathy" for arguments against it. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries began forcefully supporting it this year in the wake of well-timed tariff trades by some lawmakers. Even Trump has backed it, though some Republicans are wary of applying the bill's restrictions to him. This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent got in on the action, saying he himself would begin pushing for a ban on lawmakers trading individual stocks. "I don't think we have the perfect bill yet," Bessent told Bloomberg this week. "But I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban." Meanwhile, several lawmakers in have been found in violation of the STOCK Act in recent weeks, disclosing millions of dollars worth of trades long after the 30-45 day deadline for doing so. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the fourth-highest ranking House Republican, was late to disclose over 500 trades made by her husband from March 2024 through June 2025, totalling at least $1.5 million. Republican Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania failed to disclose that his wife sold between $750,000 and $1.5 million in NVIDIA stock last year. And Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma was late in disclosing millions of dollars made by him and his wife since 2023. Lawmakers are only required to disclose asset ranges on their reports, so we don't know the exact value of the trades. Those lawmakers and their spokespeople blamed errors made by third-party financial managers and lack of awareness of the trades for the late disclosures. A spokesperson for McClain told BI that the congresswoman "promptly filed the necessary paperwork immediately after being made aware of the transactions made in managed accounts and remains committed to transparency and adherence to all House financial disclosure rules and regulations." "I take compliance with all House rules seriously and expect the same from those managing my accounts," Meuser told BI through a spokesperson. "This was a simple, automatic filing that should have occurred without error. The mistake was made solely by my brokerage and benefited me in no way." Mullin's office did not respond to BI's request for comment, but a spokesperson told NOTUS that the senator doesn't trade himself, but relies on a third-party broker. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store