Amir H. Ali

United States District Court for the District of Columbia district Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 8 signed orders read

How Judge Ali decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Textualist on statutory exemptions and burdens; holds the moving/withholding party strictly to its burden.

“An agency bears the burden to explain why its proposed withholdings are justified under FOIA, yet Defendants make no effort to explain how their withholdings fall within the textual limit”

On summary judgment, follows the ordered burden-shifting framework and will not 'rush' to pretext; but once a genuine factual dispute on motive appears, sends it to the jury rather than granting the employer.

“a reasonable jury could conclude that Amtrak’s asserted justification was pretext for discrimination”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Summary judgment
N = 6
Granted: 1Granted in part: 2Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 3
Granted: 1Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motion to transfer venue
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC v. Ascletis Pharma, Inc.
1:23-cv-03415 · 2024-12-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is accordingly DENIED.”

Meertins v. New York State Supreme Court
1:24-cv-03546 · 2025-01-06

28 U.S.C. 2254 state habeas petition. Sua sponte TRANSFER to E.D.N.Y. -- petitioner was neither in custody nor convicted in D.D.C. (Queens County conviction). No party motion; recorded as a sua_sponte transfer order, excluded_from_stats. Signed AMIR H. ALI (AHA). Read via get_case(include_text).

Burns v. Carr
1:24-cv-02912 · 2025-02-03

Pro se IFP screening. Court GRANTED the IFP application and sua sponte DISMISSED the complaint WITHOUT prejudice for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) ('Plaintiff's cryptic pleading fails to give the defendants fair notice'). No party motion to grade; recorded as a screening order, excluded_from_stats. Dismissal prejudice = without_prejudice. Docket suffix (UNA) = unassigned/pro se. Signed /s/ AMIR H. ALI. Read via get_case(include_text).

Foster v. Wormuth (Driscoll, Secretary of the Army)
1:23-cv-01409 · 2025-04-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court grants the motion to dismiss, the motion for summary judgment in the alternative is denied as moot and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the motion for summary judgment in the alternative is denied as moot”

Philpot v. District of Columbia
1:23-cv-00671 · 2025-05-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court accordingly denies Philpot’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 6,”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“and grants the District’s cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 9.”

Office of the Federal Public Defender, Middle District of Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Justice
1:23-cv-02476 · 2025-06-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“OFPD’s cross motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”

Kelly-Crisler v. Wormuth (Driscoll, Secretary of the Army)
1:25-cv-00252 · 2025-08-11
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Granted

“the Secretary’s motion to transfer, ECF No. 9, is granted. ... The Court transfers this case to the Eastern District of Virginia.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“The Secretary’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is denied as moot without prejudice to being refiled and considered by the transferee court.”

Freeman v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak)
1:23-cv-03630 · 2025-09-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 24, is denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

From the search_dockets enumeration plus the reasoning-layer sample (NOT a counted distribution): his docket skews toward qui tam / False Claims Act (TZAC v. CHP; SideSolve LLC v. ICRW and v. National Bureau of Asian Research; Houston v. Taffa; Shindelar v. Horowitz), FOIA (Public Citizen v. FBI; Public Health Reform Alliance v. HHS; the OFPD v. DOJ reasoning-layer case), APA/agency review (Rolls v. Meink; Abebe v. Donis), federal-employment discrimination (Title VII/Rehabilitation Act -- Bryant v. Bunch; Foster v. Wormuth; Kelly-Crisler v. Wormuth; Freeman v. Amtrak ADA), habeas (Lazare v. Lazare and Meertins, both 2254), immigration, international arbitration (Ethiopian Insurance v. Boeing; Super Perfect Investments v. Republic of Tajikistan), IDEA (Philpot v. D.C.), and some criminal (US v. Lansford). jurisdiction_type and jury_demand captured at the case level.