Amit Mehta, an Indian-origin judge appointed by former US President Barack Obama, recently made headlines for ruling that Google breached antitrust laws following a significant and closely watched trial. The case, which started in September last year and spanned 10 weeks, was focused on allegations by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and several states accusing Google of using illegal practices to sustain its dominance in the search engine market.
Let’s Take A Look At Judge Amit Mehta’s Legal Journey:
Appointed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2014, Amit Mehta has served in this role for several years. Born in Gujarat in 1971, Mehta immigrated to the US with his parents at the age of one. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University before pursuing a law degree at the University of Virginia School of Law. Mehta is notable for being the first Asian-Pacific American appointed to this court.
Mehta began his legal career in 1997 after graduating from law school. He gained experience at prominent firms such as Latham & Watkins and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, where he represented high-profile clients. His notable cases include serving as legal counsel for former Representative Tom Feeney and assisting Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former president of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in a criminal assault case in New York.
Judge Mehta has also showcased his love for music through his rulings. In a 2015 opinion, he referenced his favorite musical artists, including Jay-Z, Kanye West, Drake, and Eminem. In a 2018 decision, he quoted lyrics from Beyoncé’s song “Sorry.” Additionally, he has handled significant cases such as those related to the January 6 Capitol riots, where he rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss civil lawsuits accusing him of inciting the riot, emphasizing, “To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”
