Amir Ali – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The Biden administration has tapped 39-year-old civil rights litigator Amir H. Ali for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Ali is the fifth Muslim American nominated as an Article III judge by President Biden. Prior to the start of the Biden administration, there had never been a Muslim Article III judge in the history of the country.

Background    

Amir Ali immigrated to the United States of America, eventually becoming a naturalized citizen. He received a B.S.E. in Software Engineering from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada in 2008 and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 2011. 

After graduating, Ali served as a law clerk for Judge Raymond C. Fisher on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2011 to 2012 and Justice Marshall Rothstein on the Supreme Court of Canada from 2012 to 2013. Ali then joined Jenner & Block LLP in Washington, D.C. as an associate from 2013 to 2017. In 2018, he became Director of the Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic at Harvard Law School. Since 2021, he has been the President and Executive Director of the MacArthur Justice Center, overseeing the organization’s trial and appellate litigation. He replaced Locke Bowman, who served as Executive Director for almost 30 years.

Ali teaches at Harvard Law School, co-directing the law school’s Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic. He is a founding Board Member and Co-Chair of the nonprofit organization The Appellate Project.

History of the Seat

Ali has been nominated to replace Beryl Howell, who assumed senior status on February 1, 2024.​ Howell recently stepped down as chief judge of the court on March 16, 2023.

Legal Experience

Ali is a veteran litigator who has argued civil rights, racial justice and criminal defense cases at all levels in federal court. Ali has argued several major civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Welch v. United States (2016), Ali argued on behalf of Gregory Welch, who pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2010 and had previously been convicted of three other felonies. The Armed Career Criminal Act enhanced the maximum sentence for a convicted felon from 10 years to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life imprisonment if the felon had three or more prior convictions for drug or violent felonies. Welch was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison. In the 2015 case Johnson v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and a violation of due process. Ali represented Welch who filed a petition for certiorari resulting in a 7–1 decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and was thus retroactive with Justice Thomas being the lone dissenter.

In 2017, Ali filed a brief in Hawaii v. Trump challenging President Trump’s “Muslim ban” executive order. The brief asked for declaratory judgment and an injunction halting the order. Justice Sotomayor cited Ali’s brief in her dissenting opinion.

In 2018, Ali represented Gilberto Garza, Jr. in Garza v. Idaho before the United States Supreme Court. The case centered on two plea agreements Garza signed in 2015 which required him to waive his right to appeal. Garza then informed his trial counsel he wanted to appeal post sentencing, however his counsel declined to file a notice of appeal due to the waivers Garza signed. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing and remanding the case on the grounds that Garza’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

In 2018, the MacArthur Justice Center, in partnership with the Promise of Justice Initiative filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Corey Williams in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1998, Williams, who was an intellectually disabled 16-year-old child that had an IQ of 68, was accused and convicted of first-degree murder. Prosecutors sought the death penalty and Williams spent 20 years in Louisiana prison. In response to the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office agreed to the immediate release of Mr. Williams.

 In 2022, Ali represented Navy veteran Larry Thompson before the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. Clark. Thompson’s sister-in-law called 911 to his Brooklyn, New York apartment, alleging he was sexually abusing his one-week-old child. Thompson refused to let police inside of his apartment without a search warrant. The four police officers dispatched to the apartment forced their way in, restrain Thompson who resisted and took him into custody for two days charging him with resisting arrest. After an investigation by law enforcement revealed no signs of child abuse, all charges were dismissed. Thompson filed suit against the four officers alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The case was dismissed at the trial level and on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals due to existing precedent, requiring Thompson to show that he had been affirmatively found innocent of committing the crimes in question. Thompson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Thompson was not required to show that he had been affirmatively exonerated of committing the alleged crime and, instead, “need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction.”  

Ali worked with now U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judge Bradley Garcia in a case raising important issues involving access to courts for indigent incarcerated people. Garcia took the lead on the case pro bono and Ali said of him he “litigated the hell out of it,”.

Ali is currently representing the mother of Ahmaud Arbery in a civil suit against the people responsible for the murder of her son. Arbery was a 25-year-old black man murdered while jogging in a neighborhood near Brunswick, Georgia on February 23, 2020.

Political Activity

Ali has numerous political contributions to his name. His donation recipients include President Joe Biden and Democrat candidates for both the Georgia and Texas House of Representatives.

Overall Assessment

Despite Ali not reaching his 40th birthday yet, he has a vast legal career with an extensive progressive pro bono portfolio. If confirmed, he could serve on the court for decades and likely will be on any Democrat president’s short list for elevation for the foreseeable future. Significant opposition from senate Republicans should be expected through the confirmation process. Senate Democrats (And possibly Vice President Harris) have the votes to confirm Ali if they can keep their caucus together with nearly a year left in President Biden’s term.

References

109 Comments

    • I was hoping that one of them was switched to Yeakel’s seat because it would indicate they would hold chambers in Austin. I still think it’s ironic that Yeakel talked about how overwhelming the Austin caseload was as he made it worse by retiring without waiting for a successor.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t place much blame at individual judges’ feet, particularly if they are legitimately exhausted. While it’s better for the populace when judges make personal sacrifices to mitigate judicial emergencies, the responsibility is squarely on congress to enlarge the judiciary, and having some overworked judges simply quit keeps some pressure where it should be. I actually think there’d be a decent shot of adding ~30 district judgeships in an amendment this year (if any actual legislation passes) if it’s structured to add half of them in 2025 and the other half in 2029.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Viken getting a likely successor in South Dakota marks a landmark: every Art. III vacancy occurring in 2021 that was announced within a month of Biden taking office is now likely to be filled. That’s a total of 30 vacancies, including 8 with a GOP blue slip required. So every judge eligible for senior status before 2022 that actively wanted Biden to replace them is likely to get their wish.

    If you expand those parameters, they don’t hold up 100%, but nearly so:

    66 Art. III vacancies occurred in 2021; 62 at least have nominees and Rufe’s seat (ED PA) should get a nominee soon, making for a 95% fill rate, with the exceptions being Holmes (WD AR), Mills (ND MS), and Burgess (D AK).

    (Biden inherited 46 Art. III vacancies that occurred from 2015 to 2020 and is likely to fill 44 (96%), with the exceptions being Griesbach (ED WI) and Brasher (MD AL).)

    99 Art. III vacancies were announced in 2021; of the 97 that weren’t revoked, Biden is likely to fill 93 (96%), with the exceptions being Foote (WD LA), Robinson (D KS), Mills (ND MS), and Burgess (D AK).

    While I would have been surprised if the Brasher, Mills, or Holmes vacancies had been filled, I’m disappointed that it seems unlikely that the Griesbach, Burgess, Robinson, or Foote vacancies will be filled, although they remain among the likelier seats for Biden to fill that have GOP blue slips.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Didn’t think there’d be any drama to the border-less supplemental bill but here we are. Vote is currently 58-41. Senators you’d expect to vote for the bill (Graham and Wicker, the top Armed Services Republican) have voted no. Bernie the only Democratic no vote. The most recent vote was McConnell. I saw McConnell enter the chamber, look at what was probably his conference’s whip count at the desk up front, and head out. Probably wielded a machete or something leaving the chamber.

    Current Republican ayes by my account are Moran, Murkowski, Collins, Tillis, Young, Kennedy, McConnell. Not sure if Romney has voted yet but if he has he’s probably a yes.

    Think the Republican holdouts are over amendment voting, and being able to vote on border-related amendments.

    Guess I was proven wrong about this being a dull day?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I’m starting to doubt all 9 appeals vacancies will be filled this year but if they do, does anyone here have a guess at a cutoff time before an appeals court vacancy will be too late to fill? I have zero confidence any opening announced past June would be filled.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Someone recently asked JP Collins this on Bluesky. I think his best guess was ~ March for a blue state circuit announcement and sooner for red state.

      So window has prob closed (or is quickly closing) for Steward, Graves, King, Matheson.

      But there’s still prob time for Gregory, Clay, Wardlaw, Gould, Rawlinson, Dyk.

      Moore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sorry for the potential double post, my last post didn’t go through.

        Any nominee nominated by September or so will have enough time to be confirmed prior to the end of the year. As an example, in 2022 Deandra Benjamin had her nomination sent to the senate on September 6, had a hearing November 15, and was voted out on December 8 with time to be confirmed that year. In 2024, there should be a hearing spot on November 13 and nominees that appear before SJC that day should similarly have time to advance out of committee and get floor votes.

        I have no idea why Collins would would predict February and March deadlines for appellate vacancies. The Biden administration will try to get blue slips if they can, but they’ve shown on several occasions that they are willing to ignore them if they feel they need to. As long as the caucus stays together (this is perhaps the biggest question mark with Manchin and Sinema) then you can be assured that the senate will prioritize appellate nominees above all else in a lame duck session, if the Dems lose the senate.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Any nominee delivered to the senate by mid-September should be confirmable. While I’d usually allow ~5 months from announcement of vacancy to announcement of nominee (and longer with GOP senators), if there’s someone left-of-center under the age of 60 in the state who’s already been vetted, I’d say late July would be the cutoff. If there isn’t, I’d say the cutoff would be sometime in April or May. But there aren’t many seats (barring young deaths and resignations) where that would be an issue; of senior-eligible circuit judges, the hardest to replace would be: Erickson in ND, Matheson in UT (assuming McIff Allen isn’t a closeted Dem), Sykes in WI, and King in WV. It would also be hard on short notice to replace both Smith and Shephard in AR or both Graves and Southwick in MS, but replacing one of either pair wouldn’t be hard. A few of those are easy if you’re okay with someone 60-62, but I hope they can avoid that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Realistically, if a nomination is made by September then they will have time to be confirmed by the senate if the votes are there. The good thing about appellate vacancies is that a blue slip is not required. The Biden administration of course will try to get it, if possible, but it is by no means required (see Andre Mathis, Rachel Bloomekatz, Ariannna Freeman, Anthony Johnstone).

      This talk of a window closing in February or March just isnt true. The only real barrier would be if Sinema or someone else decides to start voting no on nominees.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. The reality is that Biden is going to break George Sr’s record on appeal court confirmations but is unlikely to be able to do so with Trump’s in the first four years.
    We’ve already rehashed why that is so no point in going over it again but still, 45-46 Circuit court seats is nothing to sneeze at and better they’re filled with moderates/liberals then far right hacks.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. The motion to reconsider vote concluded at 58-41. Turns out this only needed a majority, not 60, so it succeeded.

    Schumer recessed the Senate until noon tomorrow to “Give Republicans time to figure themselves out.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of them lol

    Also, the nominees for tomorrow are posted. Everyone except Kanter (SDCA) will appear. Could still appear on the 6th and have 5 nominees in that slot.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Just looked at the docs for tomorrow’s Judiciary meeting.

    1) Amir Ali’s selection process was fast. Hope this means we get the Edelman replacement soon.

    Sep 22 – Application submitted
    Oct 2 – Screening Committee Interview
    Oct 22 – Interview w Rep Norton
    Oct 25 – Interview w WH
    Nov 13 – Informed he would be moving forward
    Jan 10 – Announcement

    2) Ali is showing up prepared. He has a ton of recommendations to try and get ahead of some of the possible critiques. Among them are recommendations from:

    – Law Enforcement Action Partnership
    – Cato Institute (which is Libertarian)
    – Group of Rabbis and Jewish leaders
    – Group of Harvard Law Students who belonged to Federalist Society.
    – Group of Business leaders and Corporate execs – including execs from SC Johnson, Google, Dell, Uber, Visa, P&G.
    – A Texas law enforcement officer who’s been protecting Texas since the 1970’s.
    – Group of Prosecutors and DOJ officials

    3) Robert White

    – He spent a summer at the Will County Public Defender office. I was happy to see that.

    – He heads up the Dark Web Task Force in Detroit. That was new to me. I thought it was interesting and might help to explain why there isn’t a ton of info about him online.

    – I was a little surprised by the lack of articles, interviews, clerkships, he’s never practiced law on his own. This on top of the fact that he’s super young, prob means that Prof Kennedy is gonna go after him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I was happy to see that the January nominee batch moved firmly into Sept/Oct interview processes and Oct/Nov WH counsel interviews. That means we’ve bridged the gap between Delery and Siskel running the counsel’s office. I’m not sure if Delery’s departure was communicated to senators well ahead of its Aug 17 announcement (happened on Sept 11), but as of now, no nominee with a SJC questionnaire available started their interview process between Jun 23 (Kiel) and Aug 25 (Schydlower), and none started their WH counsel screening between Aug 10 (Sara Hill) and Oct 4 (Mangi). We’re now up to nine screening processes fully done under Delery, so that gap seems pretty firmly set. The WH made that gap less apparent by releasing several batches of GOP district nominees that had undergone extended negotiations.

      This would mean that the transition from Delery to Siskel was much quicker than it was from Remus to Delery. Remus was counsel from 1/20/2021 to 7/01/2022, Delery from 7/01/2022 to 9/11/2023, and Siskel since 9/11/2023. From the 208 SJQs we have to date, there seem to have been five corresponding phases of the administration in terms of vetting judicial nominees:

      1/25/2021 to 8/19/2022: 153 interviews, 572 days (1/3.7 days)
      8/20/2022 to 2/05/2023: 7 interviews, 170 days (1/24.3 days)
      2/06/2023 to 8/10/2023: 39 interviews, 186 days (1/4.8 days)
      8/11/2023 to 10/03/2023: 0 interviews, 54 days
      10/04/2023 to 11/20/2023: 9 interviews, 48 days (1/5.3 days – rate will likely improve when we have a fuller view)

      While I assume that this is more due to a deputy or associate counsel transition that accompanied the counsel transition, that’s a stark contrast that points to us being back on track. The counsel’s office may well have interviewed another 20 announced/future nominations in the meantime and may be close to catching up to the recommendations they’ve received from senators (of course, the vetting process extends far beyond the interview). This would explain the slate of circuit vacancy announcements we got in January, if the counsel’s office was comfortable with where it was at and had time to put out feelers for vacancies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ignoring a few nominees whose selection process started before the 2020 election, we have at least rough dates for the nominee’s first interview with a commission/senator’s staff/senator for 176 nominations (excludes primarily nominees that didn’t have to interview outside of the counsel’s office). The corresponding periods for those initial interviews:

        12/18/2020 to 7/13/2022: 142 interviews, 573 days (1/4.0 days); 9 (6%) from states with 2 GOP sens
        7/14/2022 to 1/08/2023: 2 interviews, 179 days (1/89.5 days); 2 (100%) w/2 GOP sens
        1/09/2023 to 6/23/2023: 25 interviews, 166 days (1/6.6 days); 12 (48%) w/2 GOP sens
        6/24/2023 to 8/24/2023: 0 interviews, 62 days
        8/25/2023 to 10/08/2023: 7 interviews, 45 days (1/6.4 days); 2 (29%) w/2 GOP sens

        Part of the Remus-Delery transition was certainly due to the midterm; Remus’s team probably put out a request for recommendations no later than ~8/01/2022. Still, Delery’s team seems to have been rather lackadaisical in prompting things to get restarted even after the election results were known, but his team certainly put greater emphasis on nominees from GOP states. While it’s early days in terms of what we know, it seems like Siskel’s team is doing what it needs to to fill all fillable seats in a timely fashion.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment