Loren L. AliKhan
How Judge AliKhan rules, drawn from 50 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge AliKhan
Loren Linn AliKhan is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge AliKhan received a commission on December 13, 2023.
Judge AliKhan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge AliKhan's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge AliKhan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Abdelaal v. WSP USA, she held that the FRSA and NTSSA election-of-remedies provisions barred the plaintiff's safety-retaliation claims after he filed an OSHA Section 11(c) complaint. She rejected an interpretation of the anti-dilution clauses that would nullify the election provisions.
“Courts ‘are guided by the rule that the maximum possible effect should be afforded to all statutory provisions, and, whenever possible, none of those provisions rendered null or void.’ ... Had Congress intended the anti-dilution clauses to entirely override the election-of-remedies clauses, it could have removed the election-of-remedies provisions. It did not.”
In Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, she followed rulings in challenges to similar executive orders, held the order targeting Susman Godfrey unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined it.
“In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. ... Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.”
In Duda v. United States Department of Justice, AliKhan denied renewed partial summary judgment under a public-records exemption after finding that the government had not shown foreseeable harm from releasing an interview involving a deceased witness in a civil rights cold case.
“cannot show that disclosure here would weaken the strength of the FBI’s promises.”
In Democratic National Committee v. Trump, AliKhan granted a temporary restraining order after finding likely success on the administrative claim and irreparable injury from a challenged federal advertising campaign. The defendants had not defended the spending as permitted by the cited appropriations laws.
“Defendants do not even attempt to defend the challenged ads as being permissible uses of appropriations”
Procedural preferences
In Rivera v. Department of Defense, she granted the venue motion in part and transferred the employment case to the Eastern District of Virginia, where the alleged conduct occurred.
“the court will grant Secretary Austin’s motion in part and transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.”
In Mason v. American Prospect, she took judicial notice of news articles to establish that the coverage existed, while declining to accept statements in those articles as true.
“the court will take judicial notice of the articles as demonstrating the existence of news coverage ... but not for the truth of any statements contained in the articles.”
In National Council of Nonprofits, she held at the temporary-restraint stage that OMB’s post-suit rescission did not moot the challenge to a funding freeze, given the record about continuing restrictions.
“If Defendants retracted the memorandum in name only while continuing to execute its directives, it is far from ‘absolutely clear’ that the conduct is gone for good.”
Cautions
In Mason v. American Prospect, she held that the plaintiff had not plausibly pleaded actual malice and dismissed the defamation claim. Because the tortious-interference claim rose and fell with that claim, she dismissed the complaint in full.
“the court concludes that Dr. Mason cannot plead actual malice. And because her tortious interference claim rises and falls with her defamation claim, the court will dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”
In a Federal Tort Claims Act case, she granted a motion to alter the judgment and vacated her own earlier summary-judgment ruling after reconsidering the relevant cases and the evidentiary record, finding that a genuine factual dispute should be resolved at trial.
“Mr. Akbar’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED, and the entry of summary judgment for the United States, ECF No. 36, is VACATED.”
In the child support funding case, AliKhan required the plaintiff to explain how federal incentive payments could influence an independent state court’s custody decision. A proposed causal chain based on funding and correlation did not establish standing.
“Mr. Bhimnathwala never explains the mechanism by which HHS payments create pressure on state court judges.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 180, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 181, enter judgment for Plaintiff on Counts I through IV and VI through IX of the Amended Complaint, and grant declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.”
“Urban Engineers’ motion to dismiss Counts V and VI, ECF No. 17, is hereby GRANTED.”
“WSP’s motion to dismiss in part, ECF No. 15, is hereby GRANTED as unopposed as to Counts III, IV, and VIII, GRANTED as to Counts V and VI, and DENIED as to Counts I and VII.”
“the court will partially grant the motion for judicial notice and fully grant the motion to dismiss.”
“the court will grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.”
“the court will grant Secretary Austin’s motion in part and transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.”
“the court will grant the Attorney General’s motion and dismiss Mr. Orozco’s claims that are based on the following technologies (collectively, ‘the four systems’): Sentinel, Palantir Technologies software (‘Palantir’), Global Mission Analytics (‘GMAN’) system, and Virtual Private Networking (‘VPN’) misattribution software.”
“the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion, denies Defendants’ motion, and enters a temporary restraining order against Defendants pursuant to the terms outlined at the end of this order.”
“the court will dismiss Mr. Bedoya’s claims as moot, will grant Ms. Slaughter’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 20, and will deny Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32.”
“grant the Club’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 35.”
“deny Mr. Nguyen’s motions for leave to file, ECF Nos. 42, 45, 48”
“grant the FBI’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, and dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, and dismiss Counts I-III without prejudice and Count IV with prejudice.”
“the United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 30, is converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 191.5 days (N = 4).
- From the published-order sample plus public profiles (NOT a counted distribution): AliKhan, confirmed late 2023, has a 2024-2025 docket mixing routine federal litigation, employment discrimination/retaliation (Abdelaal; Rivera; Orozco, Rehabilitation Act), FOIA/APA (Magassa v. TSA), and defamation (Mason v. American Prospect), with a cluster of HIGH-PROFILE 2025 challenges to second-Trump-administration action: National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB (federal-funding-freeze TRO), Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President (law-firm Executive Order, permanent injunction), and Slaughter v. Trump (FTC Commissioner removal/reinstatement).
- Her pre-bench background was appellate litigation (D.C.
- Solicitor General; O'Melveny appellate group).
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 19 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge AliKhan: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge AliKhan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge AliKhan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge AliKhan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace