Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Amit Mehta

Amit Priyavadan Mehta (born 1971) is an American jurist serving as a United States district judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Born in Patan, Gujarat, India, Mehta immigrated to the United States with his family at the age of one and grew up in Reisterstown, Maryland. He earned a B.A. in political science and economics from Georgetown University in 1993 and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1997. Following law school, Mehta began his legal career as an associate at the Washington, D.C., law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP from 1997 to 2001, advancing to partner before transitioning to public service as an assistant federal public defender in the District of Columbia from 2002 to 2014. Nominated by President Barack Obama in 2014, he was confirmed by the Senate on December 4 of that year and received his commission shortly thereafter, filling a vacancy created by the elevation of Thomas Griffith to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Mehta has presided over numerous high-profile cases, including rulings related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, the congressional subpoena of former President Donald Trump's financial records from Mazars USA, and the antitrust lawsuit United States v. Google LLC. In the Google case, following a bench trial, Mehta determined in August 2024 that the company had unlawfully maintained monopoly power in general search services and text advertising through exclusive default agreements with device manufacturers and browsers. In a subsequent remedies opinion issued in September 2025, he ordered Google to cease such exclusive deals and facilitate easier changes to default search engines but declined to impose a structural breakup of the company. These decisions have drawn attention for their implications on Big Tech competition and regulatory enforcement, underscoring Mehta's role in shaping federal antitrust jurisprudence amid debates over market dominance and innovation incentives.

Early life and education

Upbringing and family background

Amit Priyavadan Mehta was born in 1971 in , , to parents Priyavadan Mehta, an engineer, and Ragini Mehta. At the age of one, Mehta immigrated to the with his family, settling in , a of . There, his mother worked as a , reflecting the family's adaptation to professional opportunities in suburban American life. Mehta grew up in Reisterstown and attended Franklin High School, graduating in 1989.

Academic training

Mehta earned a degree in and from in 1993. During his undergraduate studies, he was elected to and Alpha Sigma Nu honor societies and served as a George F. Baker Scholar in his senior year. He had briefly attended from 1989 to 1990 without obtaining a degree. Mehta then pursued legal education at the School of Law, where he served as an editor for The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law from 1996 to 1997. He received his degree in 1997 and was elected to the , recognizing membership in the top ten percent of his class.

Pre-judicial legal career

Initial legal positions

After graduating from the School of Law in 1997, Mehta began his legal career as an associate at the office of LLP, where he worked from 1997 to 1998. This initial associateship provided foundational exposure to complex litigation practices at a major international firm. Mehta then served as a to Judge Susan P. Graber of the Court of Appeals for the from 1998 to 1999, gaining direct experience in appellate review and federal judicial decision-making. The clerkship emphasized analytical rigor in evaluating legal arguments and precedents across diverse federal cases. Following the clerkship, Mehta transitioned to Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, D.C., joining as an associate in 1999. This move marked his entry into a boutique firm focused on high-stakes federal litigation, building on his prior experiences with an emphasis on trial and appellate advocacy.

Litigation and firm experience

Mehta joined Zuckerman Spaeder LLP as an associate in 1999 following his clerkship, handling civil and criminal litigation matters during his initial tenure until 2002. His early firm work included involvement in high-profile federal criminal defense, such as assisting in the representation of defendants in United States v. Welch and Johnson, a bribery case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah related to the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee's bid for the 2002 Winter Games, which resulted in acquittals on key counts. This experience honed skills in trial strategy and federal court advocacy amid complex public corruption allegations. After a period at the , Mehta returned to Zuckerman Spaeder in 2007, advancing to partner in 2010 and continuing until his 2014 judicial nomination. His practice emphasized white-collar criminal defense, complex commercial disputes, and appellate litigation, representing clients in enforcement actions involving financial fraud, antitrust violations, public corruption, and sanctions compliance. These cases often spanned state and federal courts, developing expertise in investigations, civil litigation, and regulatory defense. Mehta's firm tenure underscored a focus on trial and appellate work in high-stakes business and criminal contexts, contributing to his reputation as a litigator prior to the bench.

Judicial appointment

Nomination under Obama

President nominated Amit Priyavadan Mehta to the for the District of Columbia on July 31, 2014, to the seat vacated by Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle's assumption of senior status. The selection process involved recommendations from congressional figures, including D.C. Delegate , who had urged the administration to consider Mehta based on his litigation experience at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. This nomination addressed one of several vacancies in the D.C. District Court, which by mid-2014 included at least three openings amid a broader backlog of 54 federal district court vacancies nationwide, prompting the to prioritize experienced litigators for high-volume dockets involving administrative and constitutional disputes. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted a peer-reviewed evaluation of Mehta, rating him unanimously "well qualified" after assessing his intellectual capacity, professional experience, integrity, and temperament through confidential interviews with legal professionals. This rating, the highest possible, followed standard background vetting by the Department of Justice and , focusing on Mehta's decade-plus in complex civil litigation without noted ethical issues. Obama's nomination of exemplified the administration's strategic emphasis on demographic diversity in judicial selections, particularly for influential courts like D.C.'s, where prior benches had limited representation from . Over 60% of Obama's district court nominees were women or people of color, a marked increase from predecessors, driven by directives to expand the pool beyond traditional elite networks and reflect population demographics in appointments handling national policy cases. , as the first Indian-American nominee to the D.C. District bench, fit this pattern, selected amid Democratic majority control that enabled 250 confirmations of Obama's 270 district nominees by late 2014, contrasting with slower paces under . This approach prioritized representational goals alongside qualifications, influencing choices in a politically charged environment where the D.C. court oversees -branch challenges.

Senate confirmation

Mehta's nomination advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee following a hearing on September 17, 2014, where witnesses, including Representative , emphasized his qualifications and experience in civil litigation and , with no reported ideological disputes or significant opposition raised. The committee voted to report the favorably on , 2014, by a vote of 10-8 along largely partisan lines, reflecting standard partisan divisions in judicial confirmations during the 113th but without procedural blocks or holds targeting specifically. On December 16, 2014, the full confirmed by , indicating broad bipartisan acquiescence and minimal contention, as voice votes typically occur absent filibusters or demands for roll-call scrutiny. Mehta received his judicial commission on December 22, 2014, formalizing his appointment to the for the District of Columbia, after which he was sworn in shortly thereafter to commence service.

Judicial service

Overview of tenure

Amit Mehta commenced his judicial service on the for the District of Columbia following Senate confirmation on December 22, 2014. His tenure involves adjudicating a diverse array of civil, criminal, and administrative matters in a district court that processes filings weighted heavily toward federal government-related disputes, reflecting the venue's centrality to executive branch operations in The court's docket characteristically encompasses challenges to agency regulations, administrative procedures, and issues, stemming from its jurisdiction over suits against entities and the concentration of policy-making institutions nearby. Mehta's caseload aligns with these patterns, contributing to the district's empirical output amid a national judiciary where D.C. ranks among the higher-volume for complex, government-involved litigation. Over the ensuing decade, his opinions have addressed procedural and substantive questions across these domains, with appeals reflecting the contentious nature of such cases in this .

January 6, 2021, Capitol events cases

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta presided over trials and sentencings for multiple defendants charged in connection with the , 2021, events at the U.S. , with a primary focus on members of the militia group accused of and related offenses. In December 2021, Mehta denied motions to dismiss seditious conspiracy charges against 17 , ruling that prosecutors presented sufficient evidence of an agreement among defendants to use force to oppose the executive branch's authority in certifying the electoral vote, including plans for armed "quick reaction force" teams positioned outside He rejected First Amendment defenses, determining that the charged conduct—such as coordinated entry into the and obstruction of proceedings—constituted unprotected overt acts rather than mere political expression. In January 2023, a jury convicted founder and three associates of , among other charges, for plotting to disrupt Congress's certification of the 2020 election results. admitted evidence including encrypted communications and witness testimony demonstrating premeditated opposition to the government's lawful functions, while excluding some defense-proffered materials deemed speculative or irrelevant to conspiracy elements. During sentencings in May 2023, he imposed an 18-year term on Rhodes—the longest federal sentence for a defendant at the time—citing the gravity of undermining democratic processes and Rhodes's lack of remorse as factors elevating the penalty above standard guidelines for non-violent conspiracy, though below the 25 years sought by prosecutors. Other under received terms ranging from 8.5 years for to shorter periods for subordinates, generally aligning with or below U.S. Sentencing Guidelines ranges adjusted for leadership roles and obstruction enhancements, but exceeding averages for non-assault convictions (typically under 4 years). Mehta's sentences drew scrutiny for variance from prosecutorial recommendations, prompting the Department of Justice to appeal Rhodes's and several co-defendants' terms in July 2023, arguing they failed to adequately reflect the offenses' implications. Appellate courts have largely affirmed the underlying convictions in cases, upholding Mehta's evidentiary rulings as supported by on proof beyond protected speech. Comparative data across D.C. district judges show Mehta's penalties for leaders fell within the spectrum of 15-22 years imposed on similar figures, though below peaks for violent actors and consistent with guidelines variances granted for mitigation like absence of direct violence.

Google antitrust litigation

In United States v. Google LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-03010), a bench trial presided over by Judge Amit Mehta commenced on September 12, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, examining allegations that Alphabet Inc.'s Google maintained an unlawful monopoly in general search services and search text advertising markets under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The U.S. Department of Justice, joined by multiple states, contended that Google's exclusive default search agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, including payments exceeding $20 billion annually to Apple Inc. for pre-installation and default placement on iOS devices and Safari, created formidable barriers to entry and preserved dominance. Mehta's 277-page opinion on August 5, 2024, concluded that Google possessed monopoly power, evidenced by its approximately 90% share of U.S. general search queries and over 90% in search advertising, and had willfully maintained this through anticompetitive conduct rather than superior product quality or innovation. Mehta rejected Google's defenses, including claims that its market position stemmed from consumer preference and superior technology, finding instead that default agreements distorted competition by foreclosing rivals from distribution channels essential for scale in search, where network effects amplify advantages in accumulation and query processing. Key evidence included internal Google documents acknowledging the "portfolio" of deals as critical to excluding competitors like , alongside testimony on how billions in revenue-share payments to partners such as Apple, , and deterred alternatives, even as Google's search quality improved. The ruling emphasized that while Google innovated in areas like search integration, its conduct suppressed potential entrants by denying them the data feedback loops necessary to challenge incumbency, without crediting rivals' failures solely to inferiority. Following the liability finding, a remedies trial occurred in May 2025, where the DOJ proposed structural remedies including divestiture of the Chrome browser and Android operating system, alongside behavioral restrictions on exclusive deals. On September 2, 2025, Mehta issued a remedies order mandating Google to share anonymized user query and click data, as well as periodic snapshots of its search index, with competitors for seven to ten years to facilitate rival development, while prohibiting exclusive default search agreements during that period. He declined divestitures, reasoning that breakup risked unintended harms to innovation and efficiency without guaranteed pro-competitive effects, and permitted continued payments to partners like Apple under non-exclusive terms, subject to annual renegotiation and transparency requirements. The decision directed parties to submit a final judgment by September 10, 2025, pending appeals.

Emoluments and executive actions cases

In Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform, decided on May 20, 2019, Mehta upheld a congressional subpoena issued by the Oversight to Mazars USA LLP for eight years of President 's personal financial records, including those potentially relevant to Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clause violations arising from foreign government patronage of Trump-owned properties such as the in had argued that the subpoena lacked a valid legislative purpose absent impeachment proceedings and that it violated separation-of-powers principles by intruding on executive functions, effectively claiming a form of from such oversight. rejected these contentions, holding that Article I grants Congress broad investigative authority independent of impeachment, supported by historical precedents like the Church 's probes, and that the subpoena's focus on potential conflicts of interest—including emoluments from payments by foreign officials to Trump businesses—served legitimate legislative ends such as informing . The ruling advanced the investigation by ordering compliance, emphasizing that presidential financial aids in assessing undue influences without requiring proof of wrongdoing at the stage. appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed on November 8, 2019, reinforcing Mehta's analysis that the 's purposes outweighed separation-of-powers concerns. The vacated and remanded in (June 2020), directing lower courts to apply heightened scrutiny to interbranch disputes involving a sitting president's papers, citing risks to executive function and potential for harassment. On remand, issued a narrowed order on August 11, 2021, permitting release of limited 2017–2018 records tied to specific inquiries, such as the Trump Organization's D.C. hotel lease under the General Services Administration and foreign emoluments like gifts or payments to properties, but denying broader historical data lacking direct legislative nexus post-presidency. He balanced congressional needs against 's privacy interests, noting the records could verify compliance with constitutional bans on accepting foreign "emoluments" without congressional consent, while dismissing claims of overbreadth for non-emoluments probes as moot after 's departure. This approach rejected blanket immunity but imposed evidentiary thresholds, illustrating 's emphasis on case-specific merits over categorical presidential exemptions in separation-of-powers disputes. In related executive action challenges, Mehta reviewed Trump administration immigration restrictions under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In Gomez v. Trump (September 2020), he upheld presidential proclamations invoking INA § 212(f) to suspend entry of certain immigrants amid the COVID-19 pandemic, finding statutory authority for such discretionary actions to protect U.S. interests, but faulted the State Department for delays in expedited processing of prior approvals, ordering corrective compliance without broader injunction. These decisions reflected scrutiny of executive implementation while deferring to plenary powers absent clear legal overreach, consistent with precedents like Trump v. Hawaii (2018). No Supreme Court review followed in these matters.

Other rulings

In Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (filed 2020), Mehta ruled that ICE must produce data dictionaries detailing the contents of its Person Centric Query System and Electronic Health Records databases in response to a FOIA request seeking information on detention conditions during the , finding the agency's Vaughn index and withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) insufficient to justify non-disclosure without further specificity. When ICE failed to fully comply by mid-2021, Mehta ordered agency officials to appear in court to explain the delays and partial productions, emphasizing that FOIA mandates timely and complete responses absent valid exemptions. The D.C. Circuit later affirmed aspects of his enforcement approach in related FOIA compliance disputes, upholding his insistence on detailed justifications for redactions. Mehta has also adjudicated administrative challenges involving federal grant terminations and regulatory withholdings. In Vera Institute of Justice v. U.S. Department of Justice (filed May 2025), he granted the government's motion to dismiss a suit alleging arbitrary termination of over $820 million in grants under the Trump administration, concluding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead reliance interests or procedural violations under the , despite noting the decisions' potential to "harm communities" as "shameful" in execution. In FOIA litigation like Bryan v. U.S. Department of Justice (2020), he sustained the DOJ's Exemption 7(A) withholdings of records related to ongoing investigations into civil rights matters, prioritizing harms over disclosure. In labor disputes, Mehta granted partial summary judgment in April 2025 to , medical transport drivers suing Medical Transportation Management Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, holding that the company's piece-rate pay system failed to compensate for all hours worked, including wait times, though denying claims on calculations pending further evidence. His administrative rulings exhibit a pattern of textual , deferring to agencies on factual exemptions while rejecting unsubstantiated claims, with appeals courts reversing or affirming in roughly equal measure across his FOIA docket based on compliance specificity.

Judicial approach and controversies

Methodological style in opinions

Mehta's judicial opinions demonstrate a consistent emphasis on exhaustive factual adjudication, beginning with comprehensive recitations of trial evidence before proceeding to legal analysis. This methodical structure prioritizes empirical underpinnings over abstract theorizing, as seen in his handling of voluminous records in technology-related disputes, where he meticulously weighs competing expert testimonies on market behaviors and economic impacts. Such detail-oriented fact-finding serves to ground conclusions in verifiable data, reducing reliance on speculative inferences. In reasoning through causal mechanisms, Mehta favors disaggregated examinations that trace effects from specific conduct, incorporating quantitative metrics like usage shares and revenue allocations alongside qualitative assessments of competitive foreclosure. This approach aligns with first-principles deconstruction of statutory elements, such as monopoly maintenance under antitrust law, by isolating variables like default agreements' influence on user lock-in without presuming broader outcomes. His opinions recurrently invoke economic , including econometric models and internal documents, to validate or refute claims of anticompetitive harm, ensuring arguments build incrementally from observed patterns rather than imposed narratives. Mehta adheres rigorously to textual and binding precedents, frequently cross-referencing rulings like United States v. Microsoft to calibrate doctrinal applications without venturing into equitable expansions. This restraint manifests in explicit demarcations between adjudicative findings and remedial discretion, where he cautions against judicial overreach into regulatory domains, citing appellate guidance on tailoring relief to proven violations. Critics from varied perspectives have noted this cautious methodology, praising its fidelity to evidentiary thresholds while questioning selective applications in causation standards, yet empirical reviews affirm its consistency across dockets in prioritizing precedential conformity over innovative extensions.

Criticisms regarding antitrust remedies

Progressive antitrust advocates, including the , criticized Judge Mehta's remedies as insufficient to dismantle Google's , describing the decision as an "act of judicial cowardice" that permits the company to retain its dominance in search and emerging technologies. They argued that the ordered bans on exclusive distribution agreements and data-sharing mandates fail to address how Google's integration of search with models, such as those powering , could entrench by limiting rivals' access to query data essential for training competitive alternatives. Similarly, organizations like Public Knowledge contended that avoiding structural divestitures, such as selling or , undermines the ruling's potential to restore competition, urging legislative or appellate intervention to prevent perpetuation of . Conservative and libertarian analysts, including those from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), expressed skepticism about the remedies' foundation in the liability phase, highlighting overly lax standards for proving causation between Google's conduct and monopoly maintenance. They contended that Mehta's approach relaxed traditional requirements for demonstrating but-for causation and broadened definitions of exclusionary conduct, potentially justifying remedies disproportionate to empirically verified harms, as evidenced by the rejection of DOJ proposals like browser divestiture in favor of behavioral fixes. Critics like the viewed the government's pushed remedies—encompassing forced and ad auction restrictions—as exceeding the case's scope, echoing concerns that such interventions risk stifling innovation without clear evidence of consumer harm. Comparisons to the 1998-2001 v. antitrust case underscore the relative restraint in Mehta's orders, where proposed structural breakup was averted via settlement in favor of conduct remedies like sharing, yet Google's remedies impose lighter obligations without mandating protocols akin to Microsoft's final judgment. Analysts note key differences, including Microsoft's bundling of versus Google's default agreements, which lacked the same level of demonstrated effects, potentially bolstering Google's appeal prospects on Ninth Circuit review where stricter evidentiary standards could overturn or narrow the remedies. Both sides anticipate appeals, with progressives decrying the risk of dilution and skeptics warning against precedent for overbroad antitrust enforcement in dynamic tech markets.

Critiques of election-related sentencing

Critiques of Judge Mehta's sentencing in , 2021, breach cases, particularly those involving charges against members, have centered on claims of disproportionate punishment and judicial overreach. , the founder, received an 18-year on May 25, 2023—the longest imposed in any case at the time—for , despite not entering the building himself and engaging in no direct violence. and supporters argued the penalty reflected political targeting rather than criminal merit, emphasizing his lack of remorse stemmed from belief in a stolen and portraying the as for opposing perceived . Conservative commentators echoed this, viewing the terrorism enhancement applied by Mehta—first used in a prosecution—as inflating non-violent planning into an existential threat, especially given Rhodes' age of 58 and background. Right-leaning arguments further highlighted entrapment-like elements, claiming federal informants within the encouraged actions while the group focused on training absent direct to . Mehta's other sentences, such as eight years and six months for on January 6, 2025, and 14 months for Thomas Adams in June 2023, drew similar scrutiny for exceeding typical penalties for comparable offenses, with critics noting variances where D.C. judges like Mehta imposed harsher terms on felony convictions compared to misdemeanor cases handled by others. Empirical analyses show overall January 6 sentences below prosecutors' recommendations in nearly all cases (about 75%) and federal guidelines in under 40%, yet seditious conspiracy outliers like Rhodes' stood out, fueling claims of selective severity amid D.C.'s 92% Democratic voting in , which skeptics argue biases juries and judges toward viewing the events as an insurrection rather than protest escalation. Defenses from left-leaning sources and Mehta's rationale emphasized the gravity of coordinated efforts to obstruct the electoral certification, with the judge deeming an ongoing threat due to unrepentant views on election denialism. Prosecutors sought 25 years for , and while the Department of Justice appealed the 18-year term as insufficient in July 2023, appeals courts have upheld core findings in related cases, affirming evidence of premeditated opposition to government . Broader discourse notes politicization risks, as Mehta's Obama appointment aligns with D.C.'s institutional leanings, potentially amplifying perceptions of uneven application where non-violent coordinators face decades while some violent actors receive probation; however, data indicates no systemic reversal on appeal for convictions, supporting claims of evidentiary validity over bias allegations.

Evaluations of political impartiality

Some conservative commentators have alleged in Judge Mehta's handling of cases related to former , pointing to outcomes perceived as unfavorable to interests, such as disclosures ordered in emoluments clause litigation in 2019. However, comprehensive reviews find no widely recognized evidence of systemic across his docket. Mehta's record includes rulings adverse to executive actions under both Republican and Democratic administrations, as seen in the U.S. v. antitrust proceedings, where he found liability for monopolization in 2024 but imposed remedies in 2025 that fell short of the structural divestitures sought by the Department of Justice, prompting criticism from left-leaning sources for preserving much of 's market position. This variability undermines claims of uniform ideological favoritism toward one party. Quantitative indicators, including a D.C. Circuit reversal rate of 13.2% (10 reversals in 76 decisions), align Mehta with peers among Obama appointees, reflecting adherence to appellate precedents rather than partisan deviation. Such metrics, derived from judicial databases, prioritize empirical outcomes over anecdotal perceptions. Causal analysis attributes apparent patterns to the constraints of D.C. Circuit precedents, which guide district-level decisions in politically salient areas, countering media-driven narratives of one-sidedness by emphasizing over ideological scoring.

Personal life

Family and residence

Amit Mehta is married to Caroline Judge Mehta, a partner at the -based Zuckerman Spaeder LLP specializing in litigation. The couple has two children. Mehta resides in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, consistent with his role on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Of Indian-American heritage, Mehta was born in Patan, Gujarat, India, in 1971 to parents Priyavadan Mehta, an engineer, and Ragini Mehta, a laboratory technician, before immigrating to the United States at age one.

Professional affiliations

Amit Mehta is an elected member of the (ALI), an independent organization comprising judges, lawyers, and scholars that works to promote clarity and development in American law through projects such as , Principles of the Law, and model codes. His membership reflects engagement in scholarly efforts to refine legal doctrines and standards, drawing on empirical analysis of and statutory evolution. Mehta previously served as co-chair of the District of Columbia Bar's and Individual Rights Committee, a role focused on advancing professional standards and policy recommendations in matters, including protections and evidentiary rules. This position involved contributing to committee reports and bar initiatives aimed at improving procedural fairness and legal practice in the jurisdiction. He has also held a seat on the of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, a nonprofit dedicated to investigating and litigating claims of wrongful convictions through post-conviction DNA testing and forensic review, thereby influencing reforms in and handling. These affiliations underscore his pre-judicial contributions to organizational efforts enhancing evidentiary rigor and access to justice in legal systems.

References

  1. [1]
    Mehta, Amit Priyavadan - Federal Judicial Center |
    Judges. Mehta, Amit Priyavadan. Born 1971 in Patan, India Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Nominated by ...
  2. [2]
    District Judge Amit P. Mehta | District of Columbia
    Born in Patan, India, Judge Mehta received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University in 1993 and his J.D. from the University of ...Missing: career | Show results with:career
  3. [3]
    Amit Priyavadan Mehta - Ballotpedia
    Amit Priyavadan Mehta is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He has served on the court since 2014.
  4. [4]
    In Landmark Decision, D.C. Federal Court Holds Google Maintained ...
    Aug 16, 2024 · Following a 10-week bench trial, Judge Mehta concluded that Google possessed monopoly power in the "general search" and "general search text ...
  5. [5]
    Court Issues Remedies Ruling in United States v. Google Search ...
    Sep 3, 2025 · Mehta issued a 230-page ruling on remedies, following his prior finding that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in certain internet search ...Missing: notable | Show results with:notable
  6. [6]
    DOJ v. Google: Six Weak Spots in Judge Mehta's Decision | ITIF
    Aug 23, 2024 · In finding that Google deprived rivals of scale, Judge Mehta endorsed both behavioral economics theories as well as their application by the DOJ ...Missing: notable | Show results with:notable<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Meet Amit Mehta, the Judge Deciding Google's Antitrust Case
    May 2, 2024 · Judge Mehta declined an interview request through his chambers. Born in India, he came to America with his family when he was 1 year old. His ...
  8. [8]
    Judge Amit Mehta, District of Columbia U.S. District Court
    Jul 10, 2025 · Amit Priyavadan Mehta was born in 1971 in Patan, Gujarat, India. He grew up in Reisterstown, Maryland. He received his undergraduate degree in political ...Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  9. [9]
    Judge Amit Priyavadan Mehta was born in Patan, Gujarat, in 1971 ...
    Aug 6, 2024 · In the US, the family settled in Reisterstown, Maryland, a suburb of Baltimore, where his mother, Ragini Mehta, worked as a laboratory ...
  10. [10]
    Amit Mehta Age, Wife, Children, Family, Biography - StarsUnfolded
    Franklin High School, Maryland, United States (1989). College/University ... He grew up in Reisterstown, Maryland, United States. He was athletic during ...
  11. [11]
    None
    ### Summary of Amit Mehta's Educational History
  12. [12]
    The Hon. Amit P. Mehta - The American Law Institute
    Amit Mehta is a Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, receiving his commission in 2014. Prior to joining the Fifth Circuit, Judge ...Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  13. [13]
    AMIT MEHTA NOMINATED TO THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR ...
    Jul 31, 2014 · Mehta graduated from Georgetown University magna cum laude and University of Virginia School of Law order of the coif. NAPABA commends ...Missing: education background
  14. [14]
    United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Thomas K. Welch ...
    A federal grand jury indicted Defendants Welch and Johnson on fifteen bribery-related counts of criminal misconduct in connection with the SLBC's activities in ...
  15. [15]
    Zuckerman Spaeder LLP Congratulates Partner Amit P. Mehta on ...
    Jul 31, 2014 · Mehta has represented clients in criminal and civil enforcement cases involving financial fraud, public corruption, antitrust laws, sanctions ...
  16. [16]
    President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the United States ...
    Jul 31, 2014 · President Obama nominated Allison Dale Burroughs and Amit Priyavadan Mehta to serve on the United States District Courts.
  17. [17]
    http://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/president-obama-nominates-first-asian-pacific-american-for-us-district
  18. [18]
    U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President ...
    Mar 9, 2015 · Of the 270 persons nominated by President Obama to U.S. district court judgeships during his first six years, 250 (92.6%) were confirmed. Of the ...
  19. [19]
    Obama's Legacy on Judicial Appointments, By the Numbers
    Jan 19, 2017 · The 300+ Obama-nominated judges are considered to be the most diverse group in US history in terms of terms of gender, ethnicity, and nationality.Missing: emphasis | Show results with:emphasis
  20. [20]
    Building a More Inclusive Federal Judiciary
    Oct 3, 2019 · In all, more than 60 percent of Obama's judicial nominees were people of color, women, and sexual or gender minorities. Unfortunately, any gains ...
  21. [21]
    How Obama Transformed the Federal Judiciary | The New Yorker
    Oct 20, 2014 · When President Obama took office, the full D.C. Circuit had six judges appointed by Republican Presidents, three named by Democrats, and two ...
  22. [22]
    PN1942 — Amit Priyavadan Mehta — The Judiciary 113th Congress ...
    12/16/2014 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote. Date Received from President. 07/31/2014. Committee. Senate Judiciary ...
  23. [23]
    Norton Testified at Confirmation Hearing for Amit Mehta, First Asian ...
    Sep 17, 2014 · ... Judiciary Committee hearing in favor of Amit Mehta's nomination to become the first Asian Pacific American judge on the U.S. District Court ...Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
  24. [24]
    Caseload Statistics Data Tables - United States Courts
    This section provides statistical data tables on the business of the federal Judiciary, spanning the work of the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.Missing: composition | Show results with:composition
  25. [25]
    [PDF] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is often considered the ...
    ✓ The D.C. Circuit hears an unusually large number of major regulatory and national security cases, many of which require very specialized legal research ...
  26. [26]
    Four Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy Related to ...
    Jan 23, 2023 · Four members of the Oath Keepers were found guilty today by a jury in the District of Columbia of seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to ...Missing: Proud Boys
  27. [27]
    Judge In Oath Keepers Case Upholds Conspiracy Charges
    Dec 21, 2021 · In a long-awaited ruling, Judge Amit Mehta says the 17 Oath Keepers will face trial on charges that they conspired to disrupt Congress.
  28. [28]
    Judge rejects Proud Boys' First Amendment claims in January 6 case
    Dec 28, 2021 · A federal judge is allowing a major January 6 conspiracy case against four Proud Boys leaders to move forward, rejecting their bid to throw out the charges.Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  29. [29]
    Oath Keeper-turned-informant sentenced to year of home confinement
    Dec 18, 2024 · U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over the Oath Keepers trial and sentenced Rhodes to 18 years in prison in May 2023, lauded Wilson ...
  30. [30]
    Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers founder, sentenced to 18 years for ...
    May 25, 2023 · The punishment for Stewart Rhodes on a seditious conspiracy charge could set the bar for others, including top members of the far-right ...
  31. [31]
    Oath Keepers Leader Is Sentenced to 18 Years in Jan. 6 Sedition ...
    May 25, 2023 · The sentence for Stewart Rhodes was the longest so far in the federal investigation of the Capitol attack and the first issued to a ...
  32. [32]
    Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes sentenced to 18 years ... - BBC
    May 26, 2023 · The sentence is the longest yet given to a Capitol rioter. Prosecutors had asked for 25 years. Meanwhile, Kelly Meggs, the leader of the ...<|separator|>
  33. [33]
    2 Oath Keepers who stormed Capitol on Jan. 6 sentenced to prison
    Jan 6, 2025 · U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sentenced Jessica Watkins, of Woodstock, Ohio, to eight years and six months behind bars and sentenced ...
  34. [34]
    Most Jan. 6 defendants get time behind bars, but less than U.S. seeks
    Jan 5, 2024 · The average sentence for those convicted of assaulting a police officer is more than 45 months, The Post's data shows. The average sentence for ...
  35. [35]
    Justice Department appeals Jan. 6 prison sentences for Stewart ...
    including founder Stewart Rhodes ...
  36. [36]
    Prosecutors appealing length of prison sentences for Proud Boys ...
    Oct 16, 2023 · Prosecutors had requested 25 years in prison for Rhodes. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sentenced him to 18 years. Also on Monday, a Proud Boys ...
  37. [37]
    Here are the longest Jan. 6 prison sentences handed down so far
    Sep 5, 2023 · Here are the longest Jan. 6 prison sentences handed down so far · Enrique Tarrio: 22 years · Rhodes, a Yale Law graduate and military veteran, was ...
  38. [38]
    Here are the 5 longest Jan. 6 sentences so far - The Hill
    Aug 31, 2023 · A handful of defendants have been sentenced to more than a decade of incarceration over their actions during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
  39. [39]
    US v. Google LLC / State of Colorado v. Google LLC | TechPolicy ...
    Apr 21, 2025 · Bench trial commenced. August 5, 2024. Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search. October 8, ...
  40. [40]
    Google might lose its $26 billion search deals in antitrust trial - CNBC
    Aug 27, 2025 · At stake is more than $26 billion a year, $20 billion of which goes to Apple . That's nearly a quarter of Alphabet's operating income.
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 1033 Filed 08/05/24 Page 1 of ...
    Aug 5, 2024 · On October 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice, joined by 11 States. (“U.S. Plaintiffs”), commenced United States v. Google, 20-cv-3010 ( ...
  42. [42]
    Search Engine Market Share Worldwide | Statcounter Global Stats
    90.4% · 4.08% · 1.65%.United States Of AmericaDesktop
  43. [43]
    Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big ...
    Sep 3, 2025 · Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust ruling ... Google to keep making lucrative payments to Apple (AAPL.O) , ...
  44. [44]
    Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google
    Sep 2, 2025 · In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia released a 277-page opinion, concluding that “Google is a monopolist ...Missing: Amit | Show results with:Amit
  45. [45]
    Judge Issues Decision on Google Search Remedies in DOJ Antitrust ...
    Sep 2, 2025 · Washington – A U.S. District Judge has ruled that Google must share online search data with its rivals to address competition issues in the ...
  46. [46]
    Google stock jumps as judge rules it can keep Chrome in antitrust ...
    Sep 2, 2025 · In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and held a monopoly ...
  47. [47]
    Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records - POLITICO
    May 20, 2019 · The judge, Amit Mehta, ruled that Congress can investigate the president without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.
  48. [48]
    TRUMP et al v. CUMMINGS et al, No. 1:2019cv01136 - Justia Law
    Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/20/2019. (lcapm3) (Entered: 05/20/2019) ... Emoluments Clause violation based on a semantic distinction. The fact is ...
  49. [49]
    Judge Mehta's Ruling in the Mazars Case: A Swift Victory for Congress
    May 21, 2019 · The legal reasoning in Mehta's opinion is not surprising and breaks no new ground, so it is difficult to see the appeals court reversing the ...Missing: output rates
  50. [50]
    Judge rules against Trump in lawsuit to block Democrats' subpoena ...
    May 20, 2019 · U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta strongly endorsed Congress' broad authority to investigate the president, striking a blow to arguments ...
  51. [51]
    Trump financial subpoena: Court sides with Congress, upholds ...
    May 20, 2019 · U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the president's accounting firm to comply with a subpoena and hand over records.<|separator|>
  52. [52]
    Appeals Court Upholds House Subpoena Of Trump Financial Records
    Nov 10, 2019 · District Judge Amit Mehta upheld the subpoena in May, and Trump appealed. ... “If the President may accept no domestic emoluments and must ...Missing: CREW v. decision<|control11|><|separator|>
  53. [53]
    Judge rules Democrats can get some Trump financial records, while ...
    Aug 11, 2021 · Mehta ruled that documents pertaining to broader investigations into the former president's financial disclosures, however, are shielded due to ...
  54. [54]
    House Democrats can get some of Trump's tax records from ... - CNN
    Aug 11, 2021 · Now, District Judge Amit Mehta has weighed the House request for Trump's financial records against the standards laid out by the Supreme ...
  55. [55]
    D.C. District Court Partially Approves House Oversight Subpoena for ...
    Aug 12, 2021 · On Wednesday, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted and denied cross-motions for summary ...
  56. [56]
    Gomez v. Trump: Welcome to the Brave New World of Made Up Law ...
    Sep 8, 2020 · Judge Amit Mehta, who wrote the decision, upheld the validity of the proclamations under INA 212(f), but still ordered the State Department ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Case 1:20-cv-00739-APM Document 21 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 21
    Mar 12, 2021 · The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part each motion. II.Missing: notable civil
  58. [58]
    Judge Hauls Officials Into Court After ICE Refuses to Comply ... - TRAC
    Judge Mehta took this surprising action after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to follow his June 2020 opinion.
  59. [59]
    Case Detail | The FOIA Project
    FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has finally persuaded him that providing the data elements ...Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
  60. [60]
    Vera Institute of Justice Responds to Decision to Dismiss Complaint…
    Jul 8, 2025 · Vera Institute of Justice responds to decision to dismiss complaint in federal class action lawsuit challenging DOJ termination of safety and justice grants.
  61. [61]
    BRYAN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF ... - Justia Law
    Aug 28, 2020 · 2020). Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/28/20.( ...
  62. [62]
    DC Medical Drivers Get Partial Win in Wage Suit - Cohen Milstein
    Apr 15, 2025 · U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta granted the drivers' motion for summary judgment Friday as it pertained to Medical Transportation Management ...Missing: decisions | Show results with:decisions
  63. [63]
    Case Detail | The FOIA Project
    FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Department of Energy properly withheld records under Exemption 4 (confidential business ...
  64. [64]
    United States v. Google, LLC - Harvard Law Review
    Jan 10, 2025 · In applying Microsoft, Judge Mehta declined to require evidence of but-for causation. He noted that a but-for causation standard would ...
  65. [65]
    The Google search antitrust case is a triumph for behavioral ...
    Oct 11, 2024 · On August 4th, 2024, United States (US) judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google is a monopolist and has violated federal antitrust law.
  66. [66]
    A Critical Analysis of the Google Search Antitrust Decision
    Aug 14, 2024 · Judge Mehta's decision is seriously lacking, to the point that his primary legal conclusion—that Google's default search distribution deals were ...
  67. [67]
    DOJ & States Must Appeal Judge Mehta's Act of Judicial Cowardice ...
    Sep 2, 2025 · DOJ & States Must Appeal Judge Mehta's Act of Judicial Cowardice, Letting Google Keep Its Monopoly Power. September 2, 2025 Press Release.Missing: output rates reversals
  68. [68]
    https://www.promarket.org/2025/09/23/appraising-the-google-search-antitrust-remedies/
  69. [69]
    Public Knowledge Denounces U.S. v. Google Search Remedies ...
    Sep 2, 2025 · “Most critically, Judge Mehta has elected not to require Google to divest the Chrome browser or conditionally divest Android OS, and he declined ...<|separator|>
  70. [70]
    Remedies in DOJ v. Google (Part II): DOJ Crosses the Rubicon | ITIF
    Nov 26, 2024 · DOJ has proposed not just breaking up Google, but conduct remedies that go well beyond what is necessary to prohibit the behavior found to be anticompetitive.
  71. [71]
    DOJ's proposed antitrust remedies against Google are a bridge too far
    Jul 1, 2025 · The DOJ's proposed remedies include enforcing data sharing by Google with competitors, implementing advertising restrictions, divesting the Chrome web browser ...<|separator|>
  72. [72]
    Google's Search Antitrust Remedies Have Clear Parallel to Earlier ...
    Sep 4, 2025 · “In the Microsoft case, they pushed for big opening up of APIs and protocols and standardizations there for middleware,” Albrecht said. “In this ...Missing: comparison | Show results with:comparison
  73. [73]
    United States v. Google and the Legacy of the Microsoft Case | ITIF
    Sep 19, 2023 · There are three key differences between Google and Microsoft's conduct that suggest the DOJ should face an uphill battle in court. First, under ...
  74. [74]
    Google critics think the search remedies ruling is a total whiff
    Sep 2, 2025 · Judge Mehta's ruling did not address the ability of Google to further cement its market power through its AI offerings. Google is forcing ...<|separator|>
  75. [75]
    Federal Judges Have Shown Leniency in Nearly All Jan. 6 Cases
    Jan 5, 2024 · ... sentenced to 18 years in prison by Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee. That struck many as a long sentence for the 58-year-old graduate of ...
  76. [76]
    Leader of extremist militia gets 18 years in prison over US Capitol ...
    May 25, 2023 · In remarks shortly before the judge handed down the sentence, Rhodes slammed the prosecution as politically motivated, noted that he never went ...
  77. [77]
    Oath Keepers Leader Stewart Rhodes Says He's a Political Prisoner ...
    Jun 4, 2023 · Whether to pardon January 6 convicts like Stewart Rhodes will be the most revealing question of the Republican primary.
  78. [78]
    Illinois Man Sentenced to Prison for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol ...
    Jun 16, 2023 · Thomas B. Adams, Jr., 41, of Springfield, Illinois, was sentenced to 14 months in prison by US District Judge Amit Mehta.
  79. [79]
    Jan. 6 riot sentencings haven't matched judges' rhetoric
    Jan 6, 2023 · But Mehta instead reduced the guidelines range to 21 to 27 months in prison, and then went below that range, sentencing Wood to 12 months of ...
  80. [80]
    Chilling lines from Judge Amit Mehta who sentenced Oath Keepers ...
    May 25, 2023 · Judge Amit Mehta on Thursday handed down an 18-year prison sentence for the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 ...Missing: swearing | Show results with:swearing<|separator|>
  81. [81]
    The Relative Severity of Criminal Sentences in the January 6, 2021 ...
    Apr 19, 2024 · Many observers claim that judges are imposing disproportionately lenient sentences on January 6, 2021, “Capitol Breach” offenders.<|control11|><|separator|>
  82. [82]
    Who is Amit Mehta, the judge saying Congress can demand Trump's ...
    May 9, 2019 · Mehta, a federal judge on the DC District Court, issued a 41-page opinion on Monday calling for a long-standing accounting firm for Trump to turn over records.Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  83. [83]
    [PDF] Judge Amit Mehta Political Party
    a history of political bias in his rulings? There is no widely recognized evidence that Judge. Amit Mehta exhibits political bias in his judicial rulings ...Missing: evaluations | Show results with:evaluations
  84. [84]
    Embarrassing Ruling Allows Google to Maintain Its Search Monopoly
    Sep 3, 2025 · Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing search, and then allowed the company to keep doing it. David Dayen ...Missing: decision | Show results with:decision
  85. [85]
    Consumer welfare was pivotal in the Google antitrust remedies ...
    Sep 23, 2025 · Taken together, Mehta's decisions in the liability and remedies phases represent mixed results for both Google and the DOJ. But the judge's ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] REVERSAL RATE OF JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
    ii When compared to all D.C. federal district judges for whom appeals analytics are available, Jackson's reversal rate is in the bottom 36.4%.iii When compared ...Missing: output | Show results with:output<|separator|>
  87. [87]
    Are Judges Showing Their Political Colors in the Jan. 6 Criminal ...
    Jan 19, 2022 · A Washington Post analysis suggested that the sentences of Jan. 6 Capitol Riot defendants may reflect political bias on the part of the judges ...
  88. [88]
    Caroline Judge Mehta - Zuckerman Spaeder
    Represented six families and their nine minor children in litigation against religious institution who alleged that they were sexually abused by a serial ...
  89. [89]
    Amit Mehta's Biography - Vote Smart - Facts For All
    Full Name: Amit Priyavadan Mehta, Gender: Male, Family: Wife: 2 Children, Birth Date: 1971, Birth Place: Patan, India.