Amir H. Ali

142 S. Ct. 1332 (2022)

In Thompson v. Clark, Ali represented a military veteran falsely accused of criminal conduct. After the initial case against Thompson was dropped, he sued the arresting officers under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, arguing that they engaged in a malicious prosecution. The trial court dismissed his case, claiming that Thompson needed to show not only that the charges against him were dismissed but also that he was affirmatively innocent. Thompson appealed his case to the Second Circuit, which ruled in his favor. The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, where Ali represented Thompson at oral argument. The Court, in a 6-3 holding, sided with Thompson, allowing him to continue litigating his case on remand before the district court. The case is currently on appeal before the Second Circuit.

139 S. Ct. 738 (2019)

Garza v. Idaho is a landmark constitutional law and criminal justice case in which the Supreme Court found that the Constitution requires the restoration of the right to appeal to criminal defendants whose counsel improperly forfeited that right. Gilberto Garza, the plaintiff in this case, pleaded guilty to two state law crimes. After signing his plea agreement, which waived his right to an appeal, Garza contacted his lawyer, requesting that an appeal be filed. His lawyer refused, meaning that Garza was denied not only his right to appeal but his constitutional right to representation. Pre-Garza, defendants in Garza’s position were forced “to identify the points that their attorney would have raised in an appeal” on their own – an incredibly difficult task for those without specialized legal knowledge. Ali represented Garza before the Supreme Court, convincing six of the nine justices, including two conservatives, that his client was unconstitutionally denied his right to an appeal.

136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016)

As a fifth-year associate at Jenner & Block, Ali secured a 7-1 Supreme Court ruling in favor of his client in Welch v. United States. In 2010, Welch was sentenced to prison under the enhanced sentencing provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act. After his conviction, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the legislation’s enhanced sentencing provision was unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Under federal law, new substantive rules announced by the Supreme Court are retroactive but new procedural rules are not. The question in Welch was whether the Johnson ruling created a new substantive rule or a new procedural rule. Ali argued for the former and, in a 7-1 ruling, the Court agreed, finding that the Johnson rule was substantive and should therefore be applied retroactively. The Court’s ruling in Welch allowed those unfairly convicted under an unconstitutionally vague law to request release from incarceration.

963 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2020)

Matthew Jones was a military veteran who, while at home in his apartment building, was violently arrested by members of the New York Police Department (“NYPD”). Jones did not resist arrest but was nonetheless subjected to extreme force, hit with a nightstick, and tased twice. After his arrest, Jones sued one of the offending officers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and lost, with the court finding the officer was protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Ali and the MacArthur Center intervened during the appeals process to represent Jones before the Second Circuit. On appeal, the court ruled in Jones’ favor, finding that the officer violated clearly established law through his use of excessive force.

935 F.3d 44 (5th Cir. 2019)

In 2010, police officers apprehended and shot teenager Ryan Cole despite Cole posing no active threat to the officers. The officers then lied about what happened and falsified evidence to cover up their misconduct. Cole and his family sued the officers under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. A Fifth Circuit panel agreed, as did the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc. Ali represented Cole before the en banc panel of 18 federal judges.