Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Opinion: Don't Just Build Smaller Houses, Get People to Like Them
NEW YORK, May 22 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 21, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Don't Just Build Smaller Houses, Get People to Like Them
My Manhattan apartment is about 800 square feet, the same size as my upstairs neighbors' -- except they're a family of four plus a large dog. Much as that blows my mind, I also realize that, not so long ago, an 800-square-foot apartment for a family of four in New York would have counted as luxurious.
How far we've come. A married couple living in a 2,000-square-foot house
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 22 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 21, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Don't Just Build Smaller Houses, Get People to Like Them
My Manhattan apartment is about 800 square feet, the same size as my upstairs neighbors' -- except they're a family of four plus a large dog. Much as that blows my mind, I also realize that, not so long ago, an 800-square-foot apartment for a family of four in New York would have counted as luxurious.
How far we've come. A married couple living in a 2,000-square-foot housein suburban Salt Lake City recently told the Times that, though they always imagined having several children, they were now reluctant because they would need a bigger house, which they couldn't afford.
Even if they were just rationalizing their decision, there is a correlation between falling birthrates and rising home costs.
The average size of a single-family house built in the 1960s was about 1,500 square feet, and homes within multifamily units were about 800 square feet. Now those figures are more than 2,000 square feet and more than 1,200 square feet, respectively.
Over the last decades households also became smaller, decreasing from an average of 3.3 people in 1960 to 2.5 today. It's almost as if every member of a household gets their own bathroom.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-05-21/making-housing-affordable-requires-changing-what-americans-want)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/dont-just-build-smaller-houses-get-people-to-like-them
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Nick Gwyn, senior fellow with the Government Affairs Team:
* * *
House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
Ensuring that federal funding reaches eligible recipients, while preventing and addressing factual instances of fraud, is a critical part of good governance that has typically garnered bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is making it harder for eligible recipients to access basic
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Nick Gwyn, senior fellow with the Government Affairs Team:
* * *
House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
Ensuring that federal funding reaches eligible recipients, while preventing and addressing factual instances of fraud, is a critical part of good governance that has typically garnered bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is making it harder for eligible recipients to access basicneeds programs and is complicating legitimate efforts to help ensure payments go to the right people. Many of the Administration's actions, instead of focusing on fraud, threaten to take away the help people need to afford essentials, like putting food on the table, seeing a doctor, or obtaining child care.
For example, just last week, the Administration suspended $1.3 billion in Medicaid payments to California, citing unsubstantiated concerns about fraud in the state's home care program. California officials suggested the move could harm almost 1 million elderly and disabled people who use the program to receive care in their homes.
It is in this light that Congress must evaluate legislation recently reported by the House Oversight Committee, HR 8464 (known as the Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act).
This legislation creates a new, broad, and subjective authority allowing federal agencies or the Secretary of the Treasury to block federal payments to individuals, nonprofit organizations, communities, and states. While the bill suggests this authority is narrowly related to preventing fraud, its language is broad and vague enough for this, or any other, administration to stop, delay, or condition payments for programs it opposes, or in states that it disfavors, using claims of misspending as a pretext to take away or hold up funding.
Indeed, the Trump Administration has already attempted or threatened to block federal funds that help people afford health care, food, child care, and other basic needs, claiming concerns about fraud, but often without providing evidence or misstating the facts.
HR 8464 Allows Considerable Discretion for Federal Agencies to Block Payments
HR 8464 would require federal agencies administering public assistance or benefit programs to "delay, condition or segment" federal payments if they have "sufficient reason to determine" the payment presents an "elevated" risk of fraud, or if the agency is directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to take such action based on the same criteria. This framework, which provides permanent authority for the current and any future administration, leaves considerable discretion to federal agencies and the Treasury Secretary to determine which payments to withhold.
For example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could attempt to temporarily block federal Medicaid payments for particular services in certain states citing a rise in spending for that service, or a higher level than in other states, as "sufficient reason" to believe there is fraud, even if such spending was driven by changes in policy or circumstances. (The bill stipulates that an "increase in the volume of a payment amount" can be considered a "fraud risk indicator.") In fact, the Trump Administration has already suggested that increased Medicaid spending on home care services, such as helping older adults and people with disabilities with bathing, dressing, and eating, may be related to fraud when this broader trend actually reflects policy choices to prioritize home care over institutional care.
The legislation links its proposed authority to block payments to a current-law process for certifying the disbursement of federal funds, which are then provided through payment systems administered by the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. This process applies to nearly all federal spending, including Medicare payments to health care providers and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income payments to elderly and disabled individuals. HR 8464 includes specific references to federal funds disbursed by a state or local government under "a State-administered and federally-funded program," presumably referring to Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs that states primarily administer while receiving federal funds for at least a portion of the program's cost.
The bill outlines that any actions taken under this authority are to be temporary, but it also provides some discretion to agency heads in determining corrective compliance. And the bill provides liability protection for any federal officer blocking federal payments under this new authority, making it that much harder to hold any official responsible for abusing their authority.
HR 8464 Would Further Enable Trump Administration to Block Critical Funding
The Trump Administration has already attempted to block federal funds for a variety of critical programs by making broad and unsubstantiated claims about fraud, citing inaccurate findings, or departing from statutory processes for addressing such concerns. Leaving the Trump Administration leeway to determine what is a sufficient reason to block federal payments is dangerous given its recent actions.
The courts have stepped in to prevent, at least temporarily, many of the Administration's most drastic actions to date. But if Congress were to pass legislation that provides explicit, new authority for federal agencies to withhold funds, the Trump Administration could be emboldened to be even more aggressive in attempting to take away funding for programs that help people afford the high cost of basic needs, like food and health care.
For example, in December 2025, the Department of Agriculture sent letters to Colorado and Minnesota threatening federal financial sanctions unless they immediately reevaluated the eligibility for all households receiving SNAP in certain counties - an increase in red tape and confusion that would likely have taken away food assistance from many eligible individuals. The courts blocked USDA from moving forward on this illegal demand, citing the agency's "sweeping, nonspecific, and unsupported accusations" and the harm to eligible families the recertifications might cause.
In January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took the unprecedented step of freezing roughly $10 billion in funding for families' child care, basic cash assistance, and other essential needs in five states led by Democratic governors. This action was illegal, unsupported by evidence (or even specific allegations), and harmful to families with low and moderate incomes. The courts blocked the Administration from proceeding with this freeze until litigation on the issue is concluded.
Also earlier this year, HHS announced two separate actions to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid funding from Minnesota, and shortly thereafter sent pre-enforcement letters to California, Florida, Maine, and New York. The HHS letter to New York justified its probe in part based on an egregious mistake the Trump Administration made when calculating the state's spending on personal care services under Medicaid.
The federal government should address factual instances of fraud, but that should not mean taking away vital benefits from eligible individuals. Unfortunately, HR 8464 would further enable and encourage the Administration to block vital assistance and services that people depend on, especially as the cost of food, fuel, housing, and health care continue to rise.
* * *
Nick Gwyn is a Senior Fellow on the Government Affairs team.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-bill-to-make-blocking-federal-funds-easier-would-take-away-help-people-need-to-afford
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minnesota's Literacy Reform Needs Mississippi's Accountability
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Minnesota's literacy reform needs Mississippi's accountability
Minnesota's troubling and persistent literacy challenges finally spurred the legislature to act during the 2023 legislative session when the state passed the Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act.
Inspired by the success Mississippi has had with its early reading instruction, the READ Act overhauled
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Minnesota's literacy reform needs Mississippi's accountability
Minnesota's troubling and persistent literacy challenges finally spurred the legislature to act during the 2023 legislative session when the state passed the Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act.
Inspired by the success Mississippi has had with its early reading instruction, the READ Act overhauledthe state's approach to literacy education, requiring teacher preparation programs, school districts, and educators to use "evidence-based" reading strategies in instruction with the goal of every child reading at or above grade level every year beginning in kindergarten. Mandatory K-3 screenings for dyslexia, evidence-based interventions, and local literacy plans are also included to help achieve reading objectives.
While a positive step forward, Minnesota policymakers must remember that Mississippi's education turnaround did not happen overnight, or in a few years, or as a result of any single policy. As I document here, The Magnolia State is at least a decade ahead of The North Star State on fixing literacy, with gains evident across different student demographics. If not careful, the READ Act could become like other state-based education reform that came before it -- a paper commitment without the follow-through.
NAEP Fourth-Grade Reading Minnesota and Mississippi Comparison
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
Therefore, in addition to enforcing the READ Act, Minnesota policymakers would do well to consider additional policy to strengthen what is already on the books.
According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute, Mississippi's transformation rests on four policy pillars: standards, testing, and accountability; consequences for poor performance; evidence-informed instructional policy; and support for implementation. All of which, according to the report, are variations on the central theme of holding the state accountable for higher expectations.
Before Minnesota can fully benefit from evidence-based reading instruction, it needs to honestly assess whether its academic standards and assessments are measuring what they claim to. Mississippi's turnaround began with a hard look at expectations and state leaders confronting the fact that their standards were not very rigorous. Policymakers should require an independent audit of whether Minnesota's current elementary reading standards and benchmarks are as rigorous as they need to be. Perhaps looking at what the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) expects fourth-graders to master is a good starting point.
Mississippi's third-grade retention component, which prevents students who cannot read at grade level from being passed along, is a defining feature of the state's accountability system. Minnesota's READ Act does not include a mandatory retention policy. While debated policy, well-crafted third-grade retention laws, especially when paired with additional support policy like Mississippi's, can be an effective piece of literacy reform packages and a powerful motivational tool that can change adult behaviors.
But retention without backup is only one part of accountability. Mississippi also built meaningful consequences into its system at the district level. The state was given authority to intervene in, and ultimately take over, chronically failing districts. According to PPI, the threat of state intervention helped push districts to improve before formal takeovers became necessary.
Minnesota does identify its lowest-performing schools and districts through its North Star accountability system, but identification is not the same as accountability. North Star acts more as a support-delivery mechanism, prioritizing resources over consequences. If a school continues to be identified for comprehensive support and improvement status, it remains in that status, but the system stops short of imposing more forceful consequences such as school closure, state takeover, or leadership removal. This is distinctly different from Mississippi's approach. Minnesota should consider building a similar escalating consequence structure into its North Star system.
But even the strongest law means nothing if it is not well executed and fully implemented. Buy-in to the new components the READ Act requires will be critical to its success. For example, teacher preparation programs must ditch any outdated -- and wrong -- methods of teaching reading and give teacher candidates more opportunity to practice applying their knowledge of reading concepts. (A new national report from the Fordham Institute has found that nearly one-third of teachers are still using discredited reading methods.) Independent annual audits of local literacy plans would encourage more accountability on whether or not the changes are being incorporated.
Mississippi's success is not a miracle, contends PPI, but the result of sound policies that were adopted in sequence and not abandoned when the next "big idea" came along. It's a lesson that applies directly to Minnesota, a state with a past of adopting well-intentioned reforms that never materialize. If the READ Act is not treated carefully, it too will end up on that list, and another generation of Minnesota students will be left with inadequate literacy skills.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minnesotas-literacy-reform-needs-mississippis-accountability/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Is a Bachelor's Degree Worth the Extra Debt?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Is a bachelor's degree worth the extra debt?
The Minnesota Office of Higher Education's latest student debt report shows that students who earned certificates and associate degrees from the state's technical and community colleges completed school with significantly lower debt than bachelor's degree graduates.
American Experiment has long argued that the cultural push toward
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
Is a bachelor's degree worth the extra debt?
The Minnesota Office of Higher Education's latest student debt report shows that students who earned certificates and associate degrees from the state's technical and community colleges completed school with significantly lower debt than bachelor's degree graduates.
American Experiment has long argued that the cultural push towarda four-year degree, while the right path for a number of Minnesotans, can keep young people from knowing about and pursuing alternative career pathways better aligned with their interests and aptitude. It can also weigh them down with unnecessary student debt.
As documented in the OHE's report, the debt patterns for graduating students vary by award type. The median Minnesota bachelor's degree holder carries nearly $25,000 in debt at graduation, with 60 percent of students borrowing to get there. That dollar amount stretches to over $39,000 for a master's degree. (Keep in mind, these numbers don't capture students who took on debt but never finished school.)
In comparison, sub-baccalaureate certificate graduates leave with a median debt of just $9,500, and only 41 percent of them take on loans at all. Associate degree graduates sit at $15,000 of median debt, with a 48 percent borrowing rate.
Statewide Median Cumulative Debt by Award Type, 2023
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
While true that a bachelor's degree for certain career pathways can still be a good investment, such as leading to higher lifetime earnings, its value is no longer as clear-cut.
According to wage data cited in the OHE report, the median bachelor's degree graduate in Minnesota earns around $52,600 annually, compared to roughly $41,100 for associate degree graduates and $45,900 for certificate holders. But those per-year earning gaps should be weighed against a higher per-year debt, and the additional years spent in school.
Consider, for example, a student who pursues a two-year certificate and enters the workforce two years earlier than a bachelor's degree graduate. Not only do those two years represent work experience, but real earnings as well. At the median certificate wage of $45,900, that's roughly $90,000 in earnings accumulated before a bachelor's degree graduate even walks across a stage. And don't forget the interest accruing on student loans. A bachelor's degree holder may find a higher salary, but the break-even point to offset the higher debt could be a number of years in the making.
The narrative around four-degree alternatives is changing, and more high schools are integrating technical and vocational pathways into their school offerings and curriculum, but more can be done to help students weigh their options. High school counselors, who themselves hold four-year degrees, should make sure students who might thrive in, say, the trades or advanced manufacturing, don't feel compelled to take on four more years in the classroom if it wouldn't be the right fit.
"Everyone has been told that you have to have a four-year degree to be prosperous at life," said Tim Worke, chief executive of the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota.
That's why American Experiment's Great Jobs Without a Four-Year Degree initiative worked so hard to inform young men and women about the satisfying and lucrative opportunities in the trades and other fields. The initiative brought attention to the wide range of careers available to students who pursue technical education, apprenticeships, and community college programs.
Construction and the skilled trades are facing serious workforce shortages, and the same is true across health care support, technology, and manufacturing. These are in-demand positions that form the backbone of the state's economy and include competitive wages and manageable debt loads.
Students genuinely interested in the four-year pathway should still pursue that route, but students and parents alike should make post-secondary education decisions with a clear idea of all the options that exist. And an understanding of how those options reward -- and cost -- the graduate. Too many students may still be getting only half the story, and they deserve to hear the rest.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/is-a-bachelors-degree-worth-the-extra-debt/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: $4.5 Million From Minnesota Taxpayers Going to Once-convicted Murderer: the Troubling Backstory
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by public safety policy fellow David Zimmer:
* * *
$4.5 million from Minnesota taxpayers going to once-convicted murderer: the troubling backstory
The Claims Bill
*
During the final week of the 2026 legislative session, the joint House-Senate Subcommittee on Claims identified the tort claims against the state that it recommended be paid out. This year, there were four claims approved, totaling
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by public safety policy fellow David Zimmer:
* * *
$4.5 million from Minnesota taxpayers going to once-convicted murderer: the troubling backstory
The Claims Bill
*
During the final week of the 2026 legislative session, the joint House-Senate Subcommittee on Claims identified the tort claims against the state that it recommended be paid out. This year, there were four claims approved, totaling$5.1 million. The full House and Senate approved the Claims bill last week, and Governor Walz approved the compensation payments with his signature yesterday.
One of those claims totaled $4.5 million -- to be paid to Marvin Haynes, who was imprisoned for nearly 20 years after being convicted of murdering a flower shop owner during a robbery in North Minneapolis in 2004. Haynes was sentenced to life in prison for the murder, but the sentence was vacated nearly 20 years later following a questionable process. His compensation is believed to be the largest in state history for such a claim.
Vacating Haynes's conviction
In January 2023, Mary Moriarty was elected as the Hennepin County Attorney. Later that summer, Marvin Haynes filed a petition for post-conviction relief, despite being over 15 years past the legal deadline to do so -- an issue county attorneys should oppose in their role in the adversarial justice system.
Not Mary Moriarty - she not only didn't oppose Haynes petition, she joined it by working in concert with the Great Northern Innocence Project (GNIP) to hold a hearing to relitigate the facts of Haynes's conviction 20 years after the fact - a conviction that had already been upheld by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2006 and the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2007.
Following the hearing in December 2023, Moriarty filed a joint proposed order with the GNIP for the judge to sign that vacated Haynes's conviction. Haynes was set free that day. He subsequently filed suit against the State of Minnesota for compensation under the Imprisonment and Exoneration Remedies Act.
I wrote a comprehensive article in December 2023 detailing the injustices carried out during the process to overturn Haynes's conviction. Given the outrageous taxpayer-funded compensation now being awarded to Haynes, it's appropriate to reprint that article in its entirety.
An important note before I do. There is growing sentiment to use Haynes's overturned conviction to criticize Senator Amy Klobuchar, the Hennepin County Attorney when Haynes was originally convicted. There are plenty of issues with which to criticize Senator Klobuchar - aggressively prosecuting Haynes for committing a violent murder during an armed robbery is not one of them.
Senator Klobuchar is now distancing herself from Haynes's conviction, but make no mistake, the prosecution of Haynes in 2005 was justified, and the evidence presented to the jury and the Court of Appeals during this time -- both contemporaneous with the murder -- was vigorously litigated and properly presented. Senator Klobuchar was right to support Haynes's prosecution in 2005 and should not run from that decision in 2026.
A reprint of our 2023 article detailing Haynes's conviction
"The case of Marvin Haynes"
"We should all be proud to live in a country where people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
"Marvin Haynes was proven guilty of a 2004 first-degree murder, committed during the armed robbery of a flower shop in north Minneapolis.
"Police developed probable cause that Haynes was the shooter and arrested him. Two eyewitnesses picked Haynes out of photo lineups (the victim's sister, exclaiming "Oh my God, that's him," upon seeing Haynes' photo) and both later identified Haynes in an in-person lineup and in court to varying degrees. Several of Haynes' friends and relatives gave police statements indicating Haynes had become involved in armed robberies, that he was intent on committing a robbery the day of the murder, that he had been carrying a chrome revolver in the weeks leading up to the murder (the type of gun used in this murder), and that he made comments about "shooting an old white man" contemporaneously with the murder at the flower shop.
"The county attorney's office reviewed the evidence and independently agreed that probable cause existed to charge Haynes with murder.
"A Hennepin County Grand Jury listened to the evidence against Haynes and agreed that probable cause existed to indict him with first degree murder.
"A respected Hennepin County District Court Judge presided over evidentiary hearings and the trial and made legal decisions to ensure Haynes received a fair trial.
"Haynes made no pre-trial appeals regarding evidence presented against him.
"Haynes was tried before a jury of his peers in 2005. The jury listened to testimony and reviewed evidence during the trial and determined Haynes was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
"Haynes received an automatic appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2007. The supreme court heard arguments from Haynes' attorney, none of which included the claim or argument that the eyewitness identifications of Haynes were problematic. The supreme court denied Haynes' appeal, ruling the district court had properly ruled on issues of law during the trial, and that there was no prosecutorial misconduct in the case.
"Haynes was sentenced to life in prison.
"Enter Mary Moriarty
"Fast forward to 2022. Mary Moriarty, the former chief public defender in Hennepin County, announced her intention to completely turn the tables and run to become the county's chief prosecutor. Many saw this as a disaster in the making and warned the electorate, to no avail, against putting Moriarty in this position. Read some of these warnings here and here.
"During the endorsement process, the Star Tribune said of Moriarty:
""...we're concerned that her approach doesn't adequately emphasize public safety. Moriarty also brings baggage after her stint as chief public defender ended in controversy related to social media posts, her managerial style, and tense relationship s with other leaders in the criminal justice system."
"And:
""...the Editorial Board remains concerned about her ability to transition from defender to prosecutor and to provide effective leadership for the office."
"Despite these concerns, Moriarty took over as the county's chief prosecutor in January 2023. Within months Moriarty made clear she would be undermining the adversarial system of justice in Hennepin County, by joining forces with advocacy groups, defense attorneys, and using "science" to bring about her vision of justice and public safety in Hennepin County.
"No fewer than a dozen families and victim advocacy groups have since gone public and spoken out against Moriarty and her decisions to either not prosecute, under prosecute, or seek to overturn convictions of violent criminals adjudicated decades earlier. Read more about this outrage here, here, and here.
"Moriarty's actions have in fact been outrageous and undermine Minnesota's public safety and justice systems in 2023. Yet she asks the public to deny their eyes and believe that she is the righteous arbiter of justice.
"The exoneration of Marvin Haynes
"This summer, Haynes filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, despite being over 15 years past the cutoff to legally do so. Moriarty waived the statutory time bar and the procedural bar on Haynes' petition. Given these concessions by Moriarty, the court scheduled a post-conviction evidentiary hearing this fall.
"I've learned that to some in attendance at the hearing, it was apparent that Moriarty's office did not act as an adversarial check and balance against Haynes' arguments and offered passive and limited cross examination of witnesses and evidence presented on behalf of Haynes.
"Following the hearing Moriarty and the Innocence Project joined together to draft a 6-page order which claimed Haynes had been denied due process "because his conviction relied on constitutionally defective eyewitness identification evidence." Moriarty agreed that "the interest of justice would be served by dismissing with prejudice all charges against Petitioner in this matter" and vacating his murder conviction.
"This week Judge Willian Koch signed that order and Haynes was released to the street following a hearing held for that purpose in the Hennepin County Government Center.
"This revisionist approach to evaluating decades old convictions that were properly tried and for which multiple appeals have been considered and rejected has been particularly troubling. It's a dangerous path that needs to be closed for all but the most persuasive and clear-cut cases involving, for example, indisputable DNA evidence.
"Attacking eyewitness identifications decades after the fact, especially when those identifications were not called into question contemporaneously with the trial, is just pure nonsense. Tragically it attacks and undermines the value of this critical evidence going forward.
"The importance of our adversarial system
"Our justice system is built on a foundation of fairness and balance, using the well-conceived "adversarial" system where the parties are each tasked with representing their interests by presenting evidence and arguments before a neutral judge and a jury of peers.
""The adversarial system of justice serves to make sure that, not only in the specific case on trial, but in general proceedings, that prejudice and corruption do not result in wrongful convictions or mistreatment of others..."
"Study.com
"The balanced approach provided by an adversarial model ensures our system of justice has historically been hailed as the gold standard.
"Unfortunately, our system is under attack -- from within. The balance is being undermined, and justice is suffering as a result.
"The emergence of progressive prosecutors across the country, many who were former defense attorneys, has resulted in the inappropriate teaming of prosecutor and defense attorney in support of the defendant's arguments. This is obviously problematic.
"Can anyone envision a justice system in which the defense attorney teamed with the prosecution to help make the state's arguments against the defendant? There would be revolt, and rightly so. Why then would anyone believe it's appropriate for the prosecutor to abdicate making arguments on behalf of the state, while in turn making arguments on behalf of the defendant?
"Haynes and all criminal defendants deserve a competent and vigorous defense. Our system depends on it. But when prosecutors intentionally abdicate their adversarial role, balance is destroyed, and justice suffers.
"We should expect more of the same as more progressive defense minded attorneys seek key prosecutorial positions."
Letter to local media
The following letter to local media was written by former Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Mike Furnstahl, the original prosecutor in Haynes's murder trial.
""Among the bills recently passed by the Minnesota legislature was an award of $4.5 million to Marvin Haynes, Jr. for his purportedly wrongful conviction of the murder of Randy Sherer. Haynes had been found guilty by a jury in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Haynes' conviction on appeal."
"Haynes' conviction was vacated only because of the immoral actions of Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, conduct which the legislature and local press have refused to examine.
"The justification for Moriarty's decision related solely to the procedures used to identify Haynes as the perpetrator of this crime. Those procedures were thoroughly litigated before the start of the trial. An experienced and respected judge found nothing improper. Haynes' appellate counsel, also experienced and respected, was so convinced of the correctness of this decision that she never even raised the issue on appeal.
"For 19 years Haynes sat silently in his cell, never complaining that he was wrongfully incarcerated. He filed no additional appeals or petitions for relief. He sought no publicity nor made claims that he was falsely convicted of the charges. He did nothing-that is until Mary Moriarty was elected Hennepin County Attorney.
"In August of 2024, Moriarty stipulated that the identification procedures violated Haynes' constitutional rights and vacated his conviction, overturning the decisions of the original trial judge and, by implication, the Minnesota Supreme Court.
"Her unilateral decision had profound implications. It released a man properly convicted of a heinous crime without first providing the victims and public with a full and fair hearing justifying the reasons. It rewarded Haynes for his crime by making him a millionaire at taxpayer expense without first having a neutral judge examine and rule on the strength of the evidence. It was yet another of a long list of catastrophic decisions Moriarty has made that are contrary to her duty to protect the citizens she was elected to serve.
"One would have to have been in a coma for the last 3 1/2 years to not recognize the pro-criminal bias exhibited during Moriarty's tenure. People will remember how Governor Walz was forced to take the unprecedented step of removing Moriarty from the case against Foday Kamary after she offered him an unspeakably lenient sentence for his part in the murder of Zaria McKeever. People will also remember how a district court judge refused to accept another lenient plea bargain Moriarty offered Husayn Bravehart who helped murder Steve Markey during a botched car jacking. Lastly, people can no doubt recall how Moriarty ultimately dismissed charges against Trooper Ryan Londegran for the fatal shooting of Ricky Cobb II after a Texas law firm, who had received almost $600K of tax payer money, told her there wasn't a case to be made against the Trooper, and just before the Governor was again going to take the unusual step of removing the case from Moriarty's office. These are but a few examples. Moriarty's conduct in the Haynes case is no less egregious.
"Marvin Haynes was not even entitled to a hearing on his post conviction petition. The law prohibited that relief unless Haynes could demonstrate that he possessed newly discovered evidence. Haynes could not since all of his complaints were a mere re-hashing of the issues he raised before trial. It was only because Moriarty agreed to waive the State's objections that Haynes' petition was allowed to proceed.
"In addition, Haynes was allowed to introduce expert testimony on the question of the identification procedures, something prohibited under Minnesota case law. Again, Moriarty threw out the rule of law to favor a convicted murderer and allowed Haynes to admit evidence even the State was prohibited from using.
"Third, and most appalling, Moriarty's prosecutors were specifically instructed to not contest Haynes' evidence. In effect, they were told to "take a dive." This meant that Haynes' petition was never going to be meaningfully contested, and the victims and public were cheated out of their right to a full and fair hearing.
"I was the prosecutor that convicted Marvin Haynes in 2006. I followed Haynes' postconviction petition with some interest, thinking that I would likely be a part of the State's effort to contest it.
"When I read that a witness testified to events that were different from what had actually occurred, I contacted the prosecutors involved to offer myself as a rebuttal witness. Anna Light and Adam Petras were then assigned to the case.
"Ms. Light and Mr. Petras told me they weren't interested in my testimony which I thought was curious. I then told them that I had been contacted by a reporter from KARE 11 who was covering the case, and who told me he "wanted to hear from someone who thought Haynes was guilty." Petras then said he wasn't surprised to hear that as they were under orders to not contest Haynes' evidence. He wouldn't tell me who specifically told them that but felt that Mary Moriarty was the source of the order.
"This is outrageous and immoral conduct for a prosecutor. A review of the entire scenario makes it clear that the decision to vacate Haynes' conviction was made long before his petition was even filed. The public deserves to know why. What did Moriarty get out of this? What was her reward? What, if anything, was she promised?
"And it's not over! Haynes' greed is such that he's not satisfied with a mere $4.5 million-he wants more. He still has a lawsuit pending against the Minneapolis Police Department. Perhaps it can be used to answer these questions. One can only hope that someone will stand up and, in the name of Randy Sherer, demand an explanation for Morarity's immoral and unethical actions.""
* * *
David Zimmer is a Public Safety Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
David.Zimmer@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/4-5-million-from-minnesota-taxpayers-going-to-once-convicted-murderer-the-troubling-backstory/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: How the Export-Import Bank Can Become a Driver of Climate Action, Industrial Development, and Job Creation
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
How the Export-Import Bank Can Become a Driver of Climate Action, Industrial Development, and Job Creation
As Congress considers reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm), a new column from the Center for American Progress argues that lawmakers should take the opportunity to reimagine the bank to maximize its impact on American competitiveness and affordable green growth.
"The Export-Import Bank can be an important part of the United States' industrial policy
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
How the Export-Import Bank Can Become a Driver of Climate Action, Industrial Development, and Job Creation
As Congress considers reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm), a new column from the Center for American Progress argues that lawmakers should take the opportunity to reimagine the bank to maximize its impact on American competitiveness and affordable green growth.
"The Export-Import Bank can be an important part of the United States' industrial policytoolkit, as well as a driver of job creation and higher standard growth. But achieving this potential requires updates and improvements to the bank," said Ryan Mulholland, senior fellow for international economic policy at CAP.
Among the recommendations, Congress should:
* Prohibit financing for projects that would raise domestic fuel prices.
* Eliminate the statutory default rate cap to allow for higher-risk/higher-impact investments.
* Enhance the bank's Make More in America Initiative.
* Allow the bank to support industrial decarbonization efforts.
* Focus financing on small and medium-sized supply chain firms.
* Strengthen labor and human rights standards.
* Establish a national interest window that incentivizes strategic risk.
* Develop and enforce strong anticorruption standards.
Read the column: "ExIm Reauthorization Is a Chance to Reimagine the Bank as a Potential Engine of Climate Action, Industrial Development, and Job Creation" by Ryan Mulholland and Courtney Federico
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-how-the-export-import-bank-can-become-a-driver-of-climate-action-industrial-development-and-job-creation/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters - Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters: Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Brett Tolman, Chair for Law and Justice, in response to news that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 15 individuals over more than $90 million in fraud in Minnesota:
"We applaud the DOJ for launching one of the most robust anti-fraud enforcement efforts in generations.
The criminal charges announced in Minnesota expose
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters: Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Brett Tolman, Chair for Law and Justice, in response to news that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 15 individuals over more than $90 million in fraud in Minnesota:
"We applaud the DOJ for launching one of the most robust anti-fraud enforcement efforts in generations.
The criminal charges announced in Minnesota exposea shocking abuse of taxpayer funds meant to serve Americans in need, enabled by years of a disgraceful lack of oversight and willful negligence by America-last leaders.
This aggressive action sends a clear message: Stealing from the American people will not be tolerated.
Actions like these by the Trump administration will not only put criminals behind bars but also will help restore public trust by ensuring that programs like Medicaid serve the people they are intended to help, not thieves looking to exploit the system."
Brett Tolman is available for interview. Click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/contact/comms-team) to schedule.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/doj-suit-sends-clear-message-to-fraudsters-americans-are-not-your-piggybank
[Category: ThinkTank]
