These attorneys defend clients in need. Their pay is being frozen for months.
A group of attorneys representing clients who cannot afford legal representation in federal cases are set to have their pay halted for more than two months because of budget shortfalls in the congressional spending bill passed this year, court officials say, alarming lawyers and judges.
The pay freeze will affect private-sector defense attorneys hired by courts under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) to represent financially in need, or indigent, clients. Payments to the attorneys are expected to be suspended from late July until October, according to the federal judiciary, notices sent to lawyers and interviews. The lawyers are expected to receive the delayed payments in October.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP-friendly group pouring in millions to try to boost support for Trump tax agenda
A leading GOP friendly group supporting President Trump's "one, big, beautiful bill" is readying a $4 million advertising buy aimed at helping steer the effort through the Senate after a number of Republicans voiced concerns about the legislation as it stands. The plans from Americans for Prosperity, first reported on by CBS News, come as the GOP-controlled Senate is expected to focus on the sprawling bill key to Mr. Trump's agenda after it narrowly passed the Republican led-House last month. The messaging from AFP includes "video and digital ads that will air on cable, connected TV, and other digital platforms," according to the organization. Television advertisements from the group will initially air in North Carolina, Louisiana, Maine, Idaho and the District of Columbia but could expand further. "The sooner the Senate advances the bill, the sooner Americans start seeing relief where they need it most," said Brent Gardner, the organization's chief government affairs officer in a statement. The statement also noted the group is well aware that as the process being used to fast track the bill progressed "the hill to climb was only going to get steeper." Crucial to the GOP bill is its continuation of key parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was a legislative trademark of Mr. Trump's first term in office. But the expansive bill that passed the House also includes Medicaid work requirements, a raise of the debt ceiling and a bevy of other major measures that could prove politically difficult to pass even with the relatively strong GOP majority in the Senate. "Look, I want to vote for it. I'm for the tax cuts. I voted for the tax cuts before. I want the tax cuts to be permanent, but at the same time, I don't want to raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion," Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." The new advertising move from AFP include testimonials that show not only the impact of the 2017 tax cuts but also what could happen if Congress does not act soon to extend those earlier changes along with "ads encouraging fiscal hawks in the Senate to find spending offsets by further eliminating wasteful Biden-era spending programs," according to details set to be released by AFP. Democrats in Congress have so far strongly resisted the Trump agenda legislation. While most legislation in the Senate typically requires bipartisan support because of the chamber's filibuster threshold, Republican leaders are using a procedural route that would allow them to pass the bill on the strength of their partisan majority alone. Already a messaging standoff has emerged around the bill that could play a major role in the 2026 midterms. "Senate Republicans are doing everything in their power to rip away health care and spike costs for hardworking families, all to give billionaires a massive tax handout," Maeve Coyle, a spokesperson for the Senate Democrats campaign arm said in a recent statement. "Under the leadership of Senate Republicans, millions of people are at risk of losing their health insurance – and voters will hold them accountable for it at the ballot box in 2026." The Republican Party doesn't need every one of its Senators to vote for the bill in order for it to pass due to the party's successful 2024 election that saw the right take back the majority in the chamber and finish with a total of 53 seats. But losing the support of just four GOP senators could doom the push. "The Senate will have their differences, but focusing on where Republicans are unified is what will drive this bill forward – permanent tax cuts, energy abundance, secure borders, and the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse," Gardner, with Americans for Prosperity, said in a statement.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
For deportations, can a US president suspend the 'writ of habeas corpus'?
Question: Can a U.S. President suspend the "writ of habeas corpus"? Answer: The writ of habeas corpus is a safeguard against unlawful detention. It requires the government to justify, under the law, holding someone in custody. The U.S. Constitution mentions only a few rights explicitly in its original text, and habeas corpus is one of them. Historically, this writ was used to try and free people who were imprisoned or detained without judicial process and was a significant reform against the King of England to prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. The writ allows individuals to petition a court to determine the legality of their detention. In the U.S. today, it is primarily used to challenge the legality or sufficiency of the legal process. So, can a President suspend it? The short answer is probably not — at least not on his own. The longer answer involves constitutional interpretation, historical precedent, and a bit of Civil War history. The Constitution addresses habeas corpus in Article I, Section 9, which lays out limits on Congress, not the President. It reads: 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.' The placement in Article I is important, as this article is about the powers and structure of the legislature. The placement suggests that the power to suspend belongs to Congress. That view was confirmed in 1861, during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in parts of the country. In response, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in Ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional because only Congress had the authority to suspend the writ. Eventually, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863, giving Lincoln the power by law, which made the issue moot. There have only been four suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus since the Constitution was ratified. The writ was suspended during the Civil War; in parts of South Carolina during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection; and in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor. In modern times, no President has tried to suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval. Cerabino on Trump: Three reasons Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is bad for Florida Even during World Wars, the Cold War, and the aftermath of 9/11, presidents have relied on laws passed by Congress to detain individuals or limit court access, but the writ itself has remained intact. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced its importance. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the High Court ruled that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, even though they were held outside the United States. The Court called habeas corpus a 'fundamental precept of liberty.' Nonetheless, there are scholars who argue that the President might have some "emergency authority" in cases where Congress is unable to act. It is possible that this argument could get some traction in the courts today where there has been some movement toward granting the President a greater scope of authority. For now, though, it is likely that any suspension of the writ would require congressional approval based on an invasion or rebellion. Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar, political science professor, and co-Director of the PolCom Lab at Florida Atlantic University. The answers provided do not necessarily represent the views of the university. If you have a question about how American government and politics work, email him at kwagne15@ or reach him on (X) @kevinwagnerphd. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Trump wants to deport. But what about due process? | Opinion
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Man City pursuing deal to sign Rayan Ait Nouri from Wolves
Manchester City are pursuing a deal to sign Rayan Ait Nouri from Wolverhampton Wanderers. Agreements still need to be reached between the clubs and with the 23-year-old — however all parties now expect a move to happen. Ait Nouri has emerged as City's top target to strengthen at left-back after four impressive seasons since joining Wolves on a permanent basis, which followed a loan spell, from Angers. Advertisement Pep Guardiola's side are working to secure the Algeria international and further recruits before the Club World Cup in the United States this summer. Premier League clubs voted to approve allowing the window to open on June 1 before closing on June 10, with the tournament kicking off four days later. City face Wydad AC, Al Ain and Juventus in Group G of the newly-expanded competition. Ait Nouri has made 157 appearances for Wolves since joining the Midlands club, initially on loan, in 2020. He made 41 appearances in all competitions this season, scoring five goals and adding seven assists. Central defender Josko Gvardiol was City's most regular left-back before academy graduate midfielder Nico O'Reilly starred in the position over the final months of the campaign. ()
