Latest news with #MacArthurJusticeCenter
CBS News
10-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Michigan Supreme Court bans mandatory life sentences for 19 and 20-year-olds in murder cases
The Michigan Supreme Court made an extraordinary change to the state's sentencing law Thursday, striking down automatic, no-parole prison terms for 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds convicted of murder. As a result, hundreds of people will be eligible to return to local courts for new sentences and an opportunity for freedom. At the same time, friends and relatives of murder victims will have to revisit the cases, too. The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 opinion, said mandatory life sentences for people who were 19 and 20 at the time of the crime violate a ban against "cruel or unusual punishment" in the Michigan Constitution. The court made a similar decision for 18-year-olds in 2022. A mandatory life sentence "that does not allow for consideration of the mitigating factors of youth or the potential for rehabilitation is a grossly disproportionate punishment," Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote. Michigan was among only 16 U.S. states that impose mandatory life terms on anyone convicted of first-degree murder who was over 18, according to the MacArthur Justice Center. A life sentence in Michigan still can be possible for someone 19 or 20, though it will be rare. The burden will be on prosecutors to show that someone convicted of murder should never get a chance at parole. Judges will hear evidence about family life, mental health, education and other factors, the same process followed for people 18 or under. Welch said the court's decision was rooted in scientific research about brain development and a young person's ability to fully grasp the consequences of their actions. "As late adolescents mature into fully developed adults, they become less prone to reckless decision-making, more likely to consider and appreciate consequences, and less susceptible to peer pressure," Welch said. In a dissent, Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said lawmakers, not the court, should decide whether to change the law. "Courts should not reshape the law with every shift in scientific consensus, especially when it is the Michigan Constitution that is the subject of reshaping," said Clement, who was joined by Justice Brian Zahra. During arguments in January, Flint-area assistant prosecutor Katie Jory urged the court to think about the impact on victims' families if nearly 600 sentences are reopened. They will be "forced to reopen these old wounds, stop where they are in their grieving process, go in front of a court again and bare publicly their soul regarding the hurt that they have experienced based on the murder of their loved one," Jory said.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Who is Judge Amir Ali? The Biden-appointed federal judge at the center of Trump's USAID battle
One of the newest federal judges in the U.S. has found himself squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration's battle over foreign aid spending after the Supreme Court tasked him with determining how, and when, the government must pay nearly $2 billion owed to foreign aid groups and contractors. Judge Amir H. Ali, a Biden appointee, has served on the court for less than four months and is among the 25 newest federal judges confirmed by the Senate to serve on a federal district court. Despite his short tenure, Ali, a U.S. district judge in Washington, D.C., is already at the center of some of the most high-profile court cases to date, presiding most recently over the lawsuit seeking billions in unpaid invoices for USAID-funded projects. The case is the first significant case of President Donald Trump's term to be heard by the Supreme Court – and Amir's handling of it has brought renewed scrutiny from conservatives over his previous work as a litigator, including for progressive legal groups. Scotus Rules On Nearly $2 Billion In Frozen Usaid Payments Far from being a wallflower, Ali has had a prolific and high-profile career as both a professor and litigator, including arguing civil rights cases before the Supreme Court, and serving as the director of Harvard Law's Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic. His work has earned awards or recognition from groups such as the NAACP, the American Constitution Society – where he was a finalist for the David Carliner Public Interest Award – and Bloomberg, among others. Read On The Fox News App Much of Ali's work prior to his confirmation to the bench focused closely on police and prosecutorial misconduct and civil rights protections, some of which made headlines during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. In 2017, Ali helped open the Washington, D.C., branch of the MacArthur Justice Center, where he represented dozens of plaintiffs, including before the Supreme Court, where he argued and won two separate civil rights cases. The MacArthur Justice Center was formed in 1985 to challenge the death penalty in Illinois, and it has since expanded to support reductions in over-incarceration and the elimination of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, among other reforms, with offices in four states and Washington, D.C. Ali's first case, Garza v. Idaho, expanded the constitutional right to counsel for defendants under the Sixth Amendment. His second, Thompson v. Clark, made it slightly easier for individuals who claim they were wrongfully arrested to sue police for malicious prosecution. (Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, authored the 6-3 majority opinion.) He was later appointed executive director of the Washington, D.C., branch, a role he held through 2024, when he was appointed to the federal bench. During his Senate confirmation hearing last February, Ali was grilled by Republicans over remarks made by his MacArthur Justice Center colleague, Cliff Johnson – who suggested during a podcast interview in 2020 that defunding the police is the first step in a "movement toward making police departments obsolete." Ali stressed in response that he did not share those views, and that the views were not endorsed by the MacArthur Justice Center. "Let me be very clear about this," Ali said. "I have never advocated for taking away police funding. I would not take that position, and the MacArthur Justice Center has not taken that position." Us Judge Orders Trump Admin To Pay Portion Of $2B In Foreign Aid By Monday Now, as a judge, Ali has been tasked with presiding over some of the most consequential cases to come up during Trump's second term. Last month, he sided with foreign aid groups and contractors who sued the Trump administration for roughly $1.9 billion owed for previously completed projects that were funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. Ali gave the Trump administration just two weeks to pay the outstanding funds, prompting Justice Department lawyers to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Trump administration's request to extend the freeze in 5-4 vote, remanding it back to D.C. federal court, and Ali, to hash out the specifics of what must be paid, and when – a role Ali stressed that he takes "very seriously." Plaintiffs sued over the Trump administration's executive action earlier this year that froze nearly all foreign aid spending, changes made in the name of government "efficiency" and eliminating waste, according to administration officials. President Donald Trump has stated plans to cut some 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and to slash an additional $60 billion in foreign aid spending and at issue in the case is how quickly the Trump administration must pay the outstanding invoices from completed projects. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X Monday that roughly 83% of USAID programs are slated to be canceled following a six-week review process led by DOGE. The canceled contracts, Rubio wrote, amount to "tens of billions of dollars" that were being spent in ways he alleged "did not serve" U.S. national interests. He added that the rest of the USAID programs and contracts will be transferred to the State Department to be managed. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos Most recently, Ali ordered the Trump administration Monday evening to pay by March 14 all owed funds to USAID contractors and other international groups for previously completed projects. Ali said the Trump administration's withholding of the funds, which had already been appropriated by Congress, was likely "unlawful" and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine under the Constitution. It is unclear whether the Trump administration will move to challenge that ruling in court. Last week, Ali moved expeditiously on the Supreme Court directive, ordering both parties back to court last week for an hours-long hearing to weigh plausible repayment options. He heard from both plaintiffs in the case, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, who argued that the Trump administration "never took steps towards compliance" with Ali's order requiring the administration to unfreeze the federal funds to pay the $1.9 billion in owed project payments. During the hearing, which stretched on for nearly five hours, Ali also focused heavily on other issues, including the government's role in reviewing all foreign aid contracts and grants. Lawyers for the Trump administration told Ali they had already completed and made final decisions for these contracts. Stephen Wirth, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, objected to the administration's "breakneck" review of the contracts and grants, arguing that they "had one objective – to terminate as many contracts as possible." Lawyers were also pressed by Ali over whether the Trump administration can legally move to terminate projects whose funds are allocated and appropriated by Congress. This could eventually kick the issue back up to the Supreme Court. At the end of the hearing, Ali ordered the government to pay at least a portion of the owed funds by Monday at 6 p.m. – taking what he described as a "concrete step" forward in resolving some of the confusion surrounding the Trump administration's freeze on most foreign spending. "I think it's reasonable to get the plaintiffs' invoices paid by 6 p.m. on Monday," Ali said. It is unclear what payments the government has made since last article source: Who is Judge Amir Ali? The Biden-appointed federal judge at the center of Trump's USAID battle
Fox News
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Who is Judge Amir Ali? The Biden-appointed federal judge at the center of Trump's USAID battle
One of the newest federal judges in the U.S. has found himself squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration's battle over foreign aid spending after the Supreme Court tasked him with determining how, and when, the government must pay nearly $2 billion owed to foreign aid groups and contractors. Judge Amir H. Ali, a Biden appointee, has served on the court for less than four months and is among the 25 newest federal judges confirmed by the Senate to serve on a federal district court. Despite his short tenure, Ali, a U.S. district judge in Washington, D.C., is already at the center of some of the most high-profile court cases to date, presiding most recently over the lawsuit seeking billions in unpaid invoices for USAID-funded projects. The case is the first significant case of President Donald Trump's term to be heard by the Supreme Court – and Amir's handling of it has brought renewed scrutiny from conservatives over his previous work as a litigator, including for progressive legal groups. Far from being a wallflower, Ali has had a prolific and high-profile career as both a professor and litigator, including arguing civil rights cases before the Supreme Court, and serving as the director of Harvard Law's Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic. His work has earned awards or recognition from groups such as the NAACP, the American Constitution Society – where he was a finalist for the David Carliner Public Interest Award – and Bloomberg, among others. Much of Ali's work prior to his confirmation to the bench focused closely on police and prosecutorial misconduct and civil rights protections, some of which made headlines during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. In 2017, Ali helped open the Washington, D.C., branch of the MacArthur Justice Center, where he represented dozens of plaintiffs, including before the Supreme Court, where he argued and won two separate civil rights cases. The MacArthur Justice Center was formed in 1985 to challenge the death penalty in Illinois, and it has since expanded to support reductions in over-incarceration and the elimination of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, among other reforms, with offices in four states and Washington, D.C. Ali's first case, Garza v. Idaho, expanded the constitutional right to counsel for defendants under the Sixth Amendment. His second, Thompson v. Clark, made it slightly easier for individuals who claim they were wrongfully arrested to sue police for malicious prosecution. (Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, authored the 6-3 majority opinion.) He was later appointed executive director of the Washington, D.C., branch, a role he held through 2024, when he was appointed to the federal bench. During his Senate confirmation hearing last February, Ali was grilled by Republicans over remarks made by his MacArthur Justice Center colleague, Cliff Johnson – who suggested during a podcast interview in 2020 that defunding the police is the first step in a "movement toward making police departments obsolete." Ali stressed in response that he did not share those views, and that the views were not endorsed by the MacArthur Justice Center. "Let me be very clear about this," Ali said. "I have never advocated for taking away police funding. I would not take that position, and the MacArthur Justice Center has not taken that position." Now, as a judge, Ali has been tasked with presiding over some of the most consequential cases to come up during Trump's second term. Last month, he sided with foreign aid groups and contractors who sued the Trump administration for roughly $1.9 billion owed for previously completed projects that were funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. Ali gave the Trump administration just two weeks to pay the outstanding funds, prompting Justice Department lawyers to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Trump administration's request to extend the freeze in 5-4 vote, remanding it back to D.C. federal court, and Ali, to hash out the specifics of what must be paid, and when – a role Ali stressed that he takes "very seriously." Plaintiffs sued over the Trump administration's executive action earlier this year that froze nearly all foreign aid spending, changes made in the name of government "efficiency" and eliminating waste, according to administration officials. President Donald Trump has stated plans to cut some 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and to slash an additional $60 billion in foreign aid spending and at issue in the case is how quickly the Trump administration must pay the outstanding invoices from completed projects. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X Monday that roughly 83% of USAID programs are slated to be canceled following a six-week review process led by DOGE. The canceled contracts, Rubio wrote, amount to "tens of billions of dollars" that were being spent in ways he alleged "did not serve" U.S. national interests. He added that the rest of the USAID programs and contracts will be transferred to the State Department to be managed. Most recently, Ali ordered the Trump administration Monday evening to pay by March 14 all owed funds to USAID contractors and other international groups for previously completed projects. Ali said the Trump administration's withholding of the funds, which had already been appropriated by Congress, was likely "unlawful" and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine under the Constitution. It is unclear whether the Trump administration will move to challenge that ruling in court. Last week, Ali moved expeditiously on the Supreme Court directive, ordering both parties back to court last week for an hours-long hearing to weigh plausible repayment options. He heard from both plaintiffs in the case, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, who argued that the Trump administration "never took steps towards compliance" with Ali's order requiring the administration to unfreeze the federal funds to pay the $1.9 billion in owed project payments. During the hearing, which stretched on for nearly five hours, Ali also focused heavily on other issues, including the government's role in reviewing all foreign aid contracts and grants. Lawyers for the Trump administration told Ali they had already completed and made final decisions for these contracts. Stephen Wirth, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, objected to the administration's "breakneck" review of the contracts and grants, arguing that they "had one objective – to terminate as many contracts as possible." Lawyers were also pressed by Ali over whether the Trump administration can legally move to terminate projects whose funds are allocated and appropriated by Congress. This could eventually kick the issue back up to the Supreme Court. At the end of the hearing, Ali ordered the government to pay at least a portion of the owed funds by Monday at 6 p.m. – taking what he described as a "concrete step" forward in resolving some of the confusion surrounding the Trump administration's freeze on most foreign spending. "I think it's reasonable to get the plaintiffs' invoices paid by 6 p.m. on Monday," Ali said. It is unclear what payments the government has made since last week.
