Impeachment of Judge Amir Ali

Bill HRES-174, Impeachment of Judge Amir Ali, house resolution to impeach a federal judge for alleged misconduct in a ruling about paused foreign-assistance funds. It is at Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. as of February 27, 2025. Sponsored by Andrew Ogles (R), Brandon Gill, and Marjorie Greene.

Status
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. · February 27, 2025
Sponsors
Full Title:
Impeaching Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Summary#

This House resolution would impeach Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The resolution says Judge Ali engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with his office. It cites a 2024 written statement by Judge Ali about impartial judging and a 2024 temporary restraining order he issued against pausing certain funds under Executive Order 14169. The resolution alleges his order marginalized the President's Article II foreign policy authority, contradicted subsection (a) of Section 3 of that Executive Order by requiring immediate outlay of paused funds, and was arbitrary and capricious. The text also cites reports about past USAID problems and says Judge Ali failed to consider risks to Americans and American interests. It concludes he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

What it means for you#

The resolution was introduced in the House on February 27, 2025, and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Its sponsors are Representatives Andrew Ogles, Brandon Gill, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The resolution would, if adopted by the House, formally present an article of impeachment to the Senate as stated in the text. No vote outcomes or further steps are included in the provided text.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

According to the resolution's text, proponents say Judge Ali exceeded his judicial role by undermining the President's Article II authority and by ordering immediate spending in a way that ignored the Executive Order's pause and review process. They call his conduct arbitrary, inconsistent with constitutional precedent, and dangerous given cited USAID oversight problems. Proponents argue this conduct shows a lack of integrity and warrants removal.

Opponents' View#

No publicly available information.