Amit P. Mehta

In Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, No. 19-cv-01136 (APM), President Trump sued to block a House Oversight Committee subpoena to Mazars USA LLP for personal and business financial records dating to 2011. On May 20, 2019, Judge Amit P. Mehta issued a memorandum opinion dismissing the complaint and declining to quash the subpoena (reported as 380 F. Supp. 3d 76). A district-court ruling upholding a subpoena is not a finding of a crime and is not a Supreme Court holding.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed. On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. 848 (2020), holding that the courts below had not taken adequate account of separation-of-powers concerns when a House subpoena seeks a President’s personal information. Vacatur is status. It does not erase that Mehta wrote the first opinion.

In Thompson v. Trump, No. 21-cv-00400 (APM), decided with consolidated captions including Swalwell v. Trump, 21-cv-00586, and Blassingame v. Trump, 21-cv-00858, House members and Capitol officers sued President Trump and others over January 6. The lead caption later proceeded as Lee v. Trump after Representative Bennie Thompson dismissed his claims. A civil case is not a criminal charge.

On February 18, 2022, Mehta issued the memorandum opinion reported as 590 F. Supp. 3d 46. He denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss on official-acts / absolute-immunity grounds as to the allegations tied to the Ellipse rally and related conduct as pleaded. The opinion is the primary. After interlocutory appeal, a D.C. Circuit panel decided Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023), holding that on a motion to dismiss Trump had not demonstrated entitlement to official-acts immunity for the actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged. Mehta’s later 2026 opinion recites that Trump then elected not to appeal that Circuit decision. Circuit affirmance is not a Supreme Court holding.

United States v. Rhodes, No. 22-cr-00015 (APM), is assigned on the public docket to Judge Amit P. Mehta. The January 12, 2022, indictment charged Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and other Oath Keepers members with seditious conspiracy and related counts arising from January 6. Seditious conspiracy is a criminal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2384. It is not the civil January 6 file. Mehta tried the defendants. On November 29, 2022, a jury convicted Rhodes of seditious conspiracy (contemporaneous wire reporting). On May 25, 2023, Mehta sentenced Rhodes to 18 years (Associated Press reporting of the term). A jury verdict and a sentence are judgments in that criminal case. They are not a pardon and not a later dismissal.

After the D.C. Circuit vacated the convictions at the government’s request, the Justice Department moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to dismiss the indictment. On May 29, 2026, Mehta deferred a ruling and ordered a fuller statement of reasons (ECF 976). On August 4, 2026, he issued a memorandum opinion and order, ECF 981, granting the motion and dismissing the superseding indictment with prejudice. The opinion opens: “Reluctantly, the court grants the motion.” It later states the court “does strongly disagree” with the dismissal ask but that disagreement alone is not a valid basis to deny a Rule 48(a) motion. Commutation (not pardon) of prison terms is a separate executive act from Rule 48(a) dismissal. Dismissal is not an apology from the defendants and not a finding that the earlier verdict never happened as a historical record.

United States v. Google LLC, No. 20-cv-03010 (APM), filed October 20, 2020, by the Department of Justice and states; tried with Colorado v. Google, 20-cv-03715 (APM). Assigned to Mehta. On August 5, 2024, he issued the liability memorandum opinion (ECF 1033), reported as 747 F. Supp. 3d 1. The opinion concludes that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in general search services and general text advertising in the United States through exclusive distribution agreements. Quote, verified from the liability opinion’s closing: “Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States—general search services and general text advertising—through its exclusive distribution agreements.” A liability finding is not a structural breakup and not a criminal conviction.

After the August 2024 liability finding, Mehta held a remedies phase. On September 2, 2025, he issued a 230-page memorandum opinion, docketed as Document 1436 in 20-cv-03010 (APM). Top-line determinations printed in the introduction include: Google will be barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app as specified; “Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment”; limited sharing of certain search-index and user-interaction data with qualified competitors is required as narrowed. The opinion states courts must approach remedies “with a healthy dose of humility. This court has done so.” A remedies opinion is not a vacatur of the liability finding and not a Supreme Court holding.

In Lee v. Trump, No. 21-cv-00400 (APM), the lead caption of the consolidated January 6 civil cases that began as Thompson v. Trump, on March 31, 2026, Mehta issued a memorandum opinion on official-acts immunity at summary judgment (ECF 219). Official-acts immunity is the rule that a President is shielded from civil damages for conduct inside the outer edge of the job. The opinion PDF is the primary.

Quote, verified: “President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties.” Quote, verified: “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.” The Speech is the January 6, 2021, remarks at the Ellipse. He did not hold that every January 6 act was unofficial; the same opinion addresses other categories of conduct. A summary-judgment ruling is not a trial verdict, not a damages award, and not a Supreme Court holding.