Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali

On September 30, 2026, the day foreign-aid money was set to expire, Judge Ali ordered: “All September 30, 2026, statutory lapses for appropriations at issue in this matter are suspended pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims or further order of the court.” Source: Order, ECF 223 · Archive.

On October 20, DOJ filed its “final status report.” The State Department “currently estimates all but approximately $11.7 million in expiring FY 2025 title III and title IV funding for which it was responsible was obligated by September 30, 2026.” DOJ says that is “0.1%” of the total and “well within historical norms.” It asked that the Court “reverse its suspension of the applicable September 30, 2026 lapse in budget authority.” Source: Status report, ECF 229 · Archive.

On October 22, Judge Ali entered a briefing schedule for the rest of the case that runs to March 24, 2027. That minute order does not address DOJ’s request, and no ruling on it has issued. The September 30 suspension remains in place. Source: CourtListener docket.

Judge Ali presides over the federal case against Brian J. Cole, Jr., who is charged with, among other counts, interstate transportation of explosives (18 U.S.C. § 844(d)) for allegedly transporting two pipe bombs from Virginia into Washington and placing them at the RNC and DNC headquarters on or about January 5, 2021. Cole has not been convicted. A D.C. Superior Court grand jury returned the indictment in federal court on December 29, 2025, a week before the five-year statute of limitations ran on January 5, 2026. Cole moved to dismiss Counts One and Two as untimely (ECF 108), arguing that the Superior Court grand jury could not issue the indictment. The U.S. Attorney’s Office opposed on October 19 (Doc 112), calling the argument “premised on a flawed reading of the interplay between the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and an Act of Congress that expressly permits what occurred here.” It notes that Chief Judge Boasberg upheld the same kind of indictment in United States v. Stewart (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2025), now on appeal. Judge Ali has not ruled. Source: RECAP PDF · Archive copy.

Yaida Ford and the committee she formed to run for mayor of D.C. sued ActBlue. They alleged that “issues with ActBlue’s systems and its failure to respond to those issues interfered with their ability to fundraise, access contributions, and meet reporting deadlines,” and they brought D.C. consumer-protection, breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims. Judge Ali held that the court has personal jurisdiction over ActBlue but that “the plaintiffs have not stated a claim.” He granted ActBlue’s motion to dismiss and “dismisses this case without prejudice,” meaning it can be refiled. Source: RECAP PDF · Archive copy.

The Federal Judicial Center’s official biography of Amir H. Ali records: born 1985 in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Source: FJC Biographical Directory.

Bench Receipts’ “America-First Index” gives Judge Ali a “Sovereignty Score” of 14/100 and an “anti-border ruling rate” of 91%. The index labels him “Naturalized,” and its “key facts” call him a “Canadian-born dual-citizen.” FJC biographies do not record citizenship, and this site has not confirmed the dual-citizenship claim. It stays Reported. These are Bench Receipts’ numbers, not ours, and not a court’s. The index publishes no methodology for how the score or the rate is calculated; the site’s “Methodology” link goes to a general About page that does not explain either figure. Sources: Bench Receipts index · @Pink_Meeces on X.

On September 28, 2026, Judge Amir H. Ali vacated the election conditions and 20% holdback that DHS and FEMA attached to this year’s Homeland Security Grant Program counterterrorism grants (Doc 42, pp. 1, 23). Among other things, those conditions required states to check voter rolls against SAVE, verify poll workers’ citizenship through SAVE or another authorized government system, submit a plan to move to hand-marked paper ballots, and run a 5% post-election manual audit, and they let FEMA withhold 20% of a state’s grant until it proved compliance (Doc 42, pp. 3–4). He denied a permanent injunction, and he did not rule on whether SAVE itself is legal: he wrote that he was not passing judgment on the soundness of the election measures, only on whether Congress authorized FEMA to impose them (Doc 42, pp. 1, 18, 21–22).

In AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State, No. 25-cv-00400 (AHA), and Global Health Council v. Trump, No. 25-cv-00402 (AHA) (D.D.C.), on February 13, 2025, Judge Amir H. Ali signed a temporary restraining order (Global Health ECF 21 / AIDS Vaccine ECF 17). The order grants plaintiffs’ TRO motions in part, “on narrower terms than Plaintiffs originally and subsequently requested.” It temporarily enjoins named defendants (including the State Department, USAID, and OMB leadership as listed) and their agents from enforcing or giving effect to specified State Department memorandum sections and any other directives implementing Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of Executive Order 14169 (“Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid”), including by suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing obligation or disbursement of appropriated foreign-assistance funds for awards in existence as of January 19, 2025, or by giving effect to terminations, suspensions, or stop-work orders on those awards. The order states nothing in it prohibits enforcing the terms of contracts or grants. A TRO is a short-term freeze. It is not a final judgment. It is not a Supreme Court holding. It is not a crime finding.

• Jan 20, 2025 — EO 14169 issued.
• Feb 13, 2025 — TRO signed (Global Health ECF 21).
• Feb 20, 2025 — Enforce order (see below).
• Feb 25–26, 2025 — Payment deadline / SCOTUS admin stay (see below).
• Feb 27, 2025 — H.Res. 174 introduced, naming the TRO spine.

District TRO restraining specified implementations of EO 14169’s pause as to existing awards, as written in ECF 21. Not a SCOTUS holding. Not a nationwide wipe of all foreign policy. Not a crime finding.

On February 20, 2025, Judge Ali signed a seven-page order in both cases (Global Health ECF 28). Plaintiffs had moved to enforce the TRO and for civil contempt. The court granted the motion in part: “Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part, insofar as Defendants have continued their blanket suspension of funds pending review of agreements, the very action that the TRO enjoined.” To the extent the blanket suspension continued, defendants were “ordered to immediately cease it and to take all necessary steps to honor the terms of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other federal foreign assistance awards that were in existence as of January 19, 2025, including but not limited to disbursing all funds payable under those terms.” Contempt was denied: “the Court finds that contempt is not warranted on the current record.” The TRO was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on March 10, 2025, or when preliminary-injunction motions were resolved, whichever sooner.

The Supreme Court’s March 5, 2025 order in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, No. 24A831, recites the next district step: “On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.” The Chief Justice entered an administrative stay shortly before that deadline; the full Court denied the application to vacate the February 25 order, vacated the administrative stay, and directed the district court to clarify compliance obligations “with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” Denial of a vacatur application is not a merits affirmance of every district theory. Contempt is not a crime finding.

SCOTUS 24A831 (Mar 5, 2025): application to vacate the Feb 25 payment order denied. Justice Alito dissented (joined in relevant part as printed on the slip). The order explicitly says the present application did not challenge the government’s obligation to follow the Feb 13 TRO.

On September 3, 2025, after a D.C. Circuit panel vacatur/remand on cause-of-action grounds (amended opinion Aug 28, 2025, No. 25-5097), Judge Ali signed a 43-page memorandum opinion and order in the same two captions (Global Health ECF 139). The opinion records defendants’ representation that approximately $11.5 billion in appropriated funds from the relevant 2024 act was set to expire on September 30, 2025, and discusses the President’s August 28 special message proposing rescission of about $4 billion. The Supreme Court’s later stay described the district order as “directing the Executive to obligate roughly $10.5 billion of appropriated aid funding set to expire on September 30.” Both figures are printed here; they are not collapsed. On likelihood of success, the opinion states defendants’ reasons for not developing an argument “may be many, including that, even having changed their position, there is not a plausible interpretation of the statutes that would justify the billions of dollars they plan to withhold,” and concludes the decision not to spend was contrary to law under the APA as a preliminary finding. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment and not a damages award.

See SCOTUS 25A269 (Sept 26, 2025 stay as to funding subject to the Aug 28 special message). District and D.C. Circuit had denied stays of the Sept 3 order before the Supreme Court acted.

In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, No. 25A269 (Sept 26, 2025), the Supreme Court granted the government’s application for a stay. Quote, verified: “The District Court’s September 3, 2025 order granting a preliminary injunction in case Nos. 1:25–cv–400 and 1:25–cv–402 is stayed as to the funding subject to the President’s August 28 special message,” pending D.C. Circuit appeal and any timely certiorari petition. The Court wrote that the government, “at this early stage, has made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act precludes respondents’ suit, brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, to enforce the appropriations at issue here,” and that “mandamus relief is unavailable,” and that asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh potential harm to respondents. Quote, verified: “This order should not be read as a final determination on the merits. The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief.” Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented as printed on the slip. A stay as to the special-message slice is not a vacatur of the February TRO and is not a full wipe of every line in the September order.

Amir H. Ali was nominated by President Biden on February 1, 2024 (PN1402), after a January 10, 2024 White House announcement, to the D.D.C. seat vacated by Beryl Alaine Howell. Senate Judiciary held a nominations hearing February 8, 2024; the committee reported the nomination favorably March 7, 2024, 11–10, without printed report. On November 20, 2024, cloture was invoked 50–48 (Vote 290) and the Senate confirmed him 50–49 (Vote 291). The Federal Judicial Center records commission November 22, 2024; the D.D.C. court biography prints appointed December 2, 2024 — both official dates are recorded here without inventing a swearing-in story. FJC career line: born 1985, Kingston, Ontario; University of Waterloo B.S.E. 2008; Harvard Law J.D. 2011; clerk to Judge Raymond C. Fisher (9th Cir.) 2011–2012 and Justice Marshall Rothstein (Supreme Court of Canada) 2012–2013; private practice 2013–2017; Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center 2017–2024 (president and executive director 2023–2024 per FJC). D.D.C. bio adds Jenner & Block and “magna cum laude.”

H.Res. 174, 119th Congress, is titled “Impeaching Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors.” Congress.gov and the GPO introduced PDF record introduction on February 27, 2025, by Mr. Ogles (for himself and Mr. Gill of Texas), referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Status: Introduced. The resolution’s allegations recite Ali’s temporary restraining order against the EO 14169 funding pause and related enforcement. Those are the resolution’s allegations — not a court finding of high crimes, not a Senate conviction, and not a removal from office.

House resolution introduced. Introduction ≠ House vote ≠ Senate conviction ≠ removal from office. This file will not write “IMPEACHED” as a status badge.