Impeaching Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
This House resolution (H. Res. 174) introduces an article of impeachment against Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The measure, sponsored by Representatives Ogles and Gill (Texas) and referred to the Judiciary Committee, asserts that Judge Ali has engaged in a pattern of conduct “incompatible with the trust and confidence” placed in a federal judge. The article contends that his actions surrounding an Executive Order (EO 14169) and related funding decisions show contradictions with constitutional and statutory authority, undermine the President’s Article II powers, and reflect a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If the House approves the article, it would be exhibited to the Senate as the basis for a trial to determine whether to remove him from office. The language of the article centers on two broad themes: (1) the judge’s stance on impartial adjudication and executive-branch decision-making, and (2) a конкрет set of actions related to a temporary restraining order and the funding of foreign aid programs. It also cites external reports (a 2021 GAO report on USAID subawards and a 2024 press-related claim about USAID funding) to argue that his decision-making could cause irreparable harm to U.S. interests. The bill concludes that Judge Ali should be removed from office.
Key Points
- 1Impeachment purpose and scope: The House asserts that Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali’s conduct constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors and that he should be removed from office.
- 2Specific conduct cited: The article points to a 2024 written statement in which the judge emphasized impartial application of the law, and a temporary restraining order related to pausing funds under Executive Order 14169. The resolution argues that his rulings arrogate authority from the President and disrupt foreign-policy considerations.
- 3Executive-order funding dispute: The article argues that Judge Ali mandated immediate funding disbursements in a way that conflicted with the President’s authority and the purpose of EO 14169, labeling this conduct arbitrary and capricious.
- 4Supporting materials referenced: The article cites a 2021 GAO report about USAID subawards in Gaza/West Bank and a 2024 claim about USAID financing meals for al-Qaida-aligned fighters in Syria to bolster its charges about potential harms to U.S. interests.
- 5Procedure and status: The House resolution was introduced February 27, 2025, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The article of impeachment would be presented to the Senate if the House approves it; removal would require a Senate conviction (two-thirds vote after a trial).