The judge presiding over the Democratic Party’s lawsuit against the Trump administration has previously donated to former President Joe Biden. Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee confirmed in late November by a narrow 50-49 vote, has a history of contributing to Democratic candidates.
On Friday, he was assigned to hear the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order asserting greater presidential control over federal agencies. While working at the MacArthur Justice Center, Judge Amir Ali contributed $2,000 to Biden’s 2020 campaign, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. He also directed several hundred dollars to other Democratic candidates during the 2020 election through donations to ActBlue, the Daily Caller reported.
The DNC’s lawsuit claims that Trump’s move to assert greater control over federal agencies threatens the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an agency the party heavily relies on since its regulations “structure nearly every aspect” of their operations. The DNC expressed concern that the FEC’s “bipartisan commission of experts” could be undermined by the legal interpretations of a “political opponent.”
“The extinction of the FEC’s independence—and replacement with the President’s decree—severely harms Plaintiffs by placing the head of the opposing political party in charge of interpreting campaign finance law for the executive branch,” the lawsuit states.
In a separate case, Ali issued an order on Tuesday requiring the Trump administration to resume an estimated $2 billion in frozen foreign aid payments by the following day. However, Chief Justice John Roberts intervened on Wednesday night, placing a hold on Ali’s order.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) filed articles of impeachment on Thursday against Ali. “Judge Ali has without merit marginalized the President’s Article II authority, which vests the power to conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States, and has further compromised the President’s fiduciary obligation to review federal agencies and programs,” the resolution states.
“This patent violation of Constitutional precedent—which necessarily precludes an explanation based on ignorance of the supreme law of the land—is entirely inconsistent with serving the United States as a district court judge,” it adds.
