Overview[1]

Loren Linn AliKhan was born in Baltimore County, Maryland in 1983. Her father, Mahmood AliKhan, was a cardiologist who was born in British India and later moved to Pakistan before immigrating to the United States and taking a job with the U.S. Public Health Service. Her mother, Linda AliKhan, was a nurse.

After leaving high school to attend college when she was just 15 years old, Loren AliKhan went on to earn both an A.A. (2002) and a B.A. (2003) from Bard College at Simon’s Rock, and a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2006. During her time in law school, Alikhan served as president of the Georgetown University chapter of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS). ACS is a legal activist organization that endorses the doctrine of “living constitutionalism,” which views the United States Constitution as a highly malleable document whose meaning and mandates are constantly evolving in order to adapt to changes in societal values and norms.

After completing her legal studies, AliKhan clerked for Judge Louis H. Pollak of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2006-07, and for Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2007-08. During 2008-09, she served as: (a) a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and (b) a Temple Bar Scholar in London, England, where she worked with Lord David Hope of Craighead, a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

In 2010, AliKhan joined the Supreme Court & Appellate Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of the multinational law firm, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, where she had a bustling pro bono practice. During her tenure with O’Melveny, AliKhan also assisted with: (a) the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate Practice Clinic at Harvard Law School, and (b) the legal writing program at Yale Law School.

In 2013, AliKhan was appointed as Deputy Solicitor General in the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. In 2018 she was elevated to Solicitor General, a position she went on to hold for the next four years.

On September 30, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated AliKhan to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, a position for which the United States Senate confirmed her by a vote of 55-41 on February 8, 2022.

On May 4, 2023, President Biden nominated AliKhan to be a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed her for this post by a 51-50 vote on December 5, 2023, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaking vote.

Judge AliKhan currently sits on the boards of the American Inns of Court Foundation, Bard College at Simon’s Rock, and the Lawyers’ Club of Washington.

She has been a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court (2010-present); the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute (2010-2022); the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (2010-2013); the American Law Institute (2016-present); The Appellate Project (2020-present); the South Asian Bar Association of Washington, D.C. (2009-2010, 2013-present); the Washington Bar Association (2021-2022); and the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (2017-2019, 2021-present).

Moreover, AliKhan has been a panelist and guest speaker at numerous events hosted by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Emoluments Lawsuits Against Trump

During her tenure as Solicitor General for the District of Columbia (2018-2022), Alikhan represented D.C. in the emoluments lawsuits that D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh had each filed against President Donald Trump in 2017. The suits accused Trump of violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, which respectively: (a) bar federal officeholders from accepting gifts, payments, or other items of value from foreign states or rulers, and (b) prohibit the President from receiving — from the federal government or from any state in the Union — any form of compensation beyond his lawfully prescribed salary. Specifically, the plaintiffs accused Trump of using his political office to unfairly boost the profits he earned from his business interests, especially the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.  Foreign dignitaries and state governments, the plaintiffs explained, would surely be inclined to patronize Trump’s hotel in order to curry political favor with him – a course of action that would inevitably draw revenue away from similar, competing business establishments also located in the D.C. and Maryland area.

Defining emoluments very broadly as benefits consisting of “any profit, gain or advantage,” AliKhan argued that the “cleanest remedy” for Trump’s alleged violations of the Constitution would be an order requiring him to divest himself of the aforementioned hotel as well as his other business interests.

The emoluments lawsuits of 2017 ultimately became moot after President Trump left office in January 2021. AliKhan at that point informed the Supreme Court that with the newly elected Biden-Harris administration now ensconced in the White House, injunctive relief against Trump was no longer necessary. And the Supreme Court, in turn, ordered lower courts to dismiss the suits as no longer relevant.

Supporting a Drug-Overdose-Prevention Site

In September 2021, AliKhan was cited in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the case of Safehouse v. Drug Enforcement Administration. The brief supported the efforts of Safehouse, a Philadelphia-based non-profit entity, to open a supervised drug-overdose prevention site. According to Justia.com:

“Safehouse wants to try a new approach to combat the opioid crisis by opening a safe-injection site that would offer drug treatment and counseling, refer people to social services, distribute overdose-reversal kits, and exchange used syringes for clean ones, with a consumption room where users could inject themselves with illegal drugs, including heroin and fentanyl, that the user brings in from outside. The user would not be allowed to share or trade drugs on the premises. Staffers would watch users for signs of overdose and intervene with medical care as needed.”

As the Solicitor General for the District of Columbia, AliKhan represented the District’s Attorney General, Karl Racine, on the brief, which: (a) argued that entities like Safehouse could serve as highly instructive “laboratories of health policy,” and (b) speculated that supervised injection sites might help to ameliorate America’s opioid crisis.

Hostile Toward Religious Freedom

During the Senate confirmation proceedings related to AliKhan’s nomination for the post of United States District Judge in 2023, some Republican senators voiced concerns that during her prior service as Solicitor General of the District of Columbia (2018-2020), she had seemingly demonstrated a hostility toward religious freedom. For example:

• During the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, AliKhan defended the lockdown orders by which D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser barred churches from holding services — even outdoor services where the congregants wore masks and observed “social distancing” protocols — while raucous and often-violent street protests led by Black Lives Matter and Antifa radicals were permitted to take place unimpeded. AliKhan claimed, without scientific evidence, that there was a “greater risk” of spreading infection at outdoor religious gatherings, than at the street protests. Meanwhile, Mayor Bowser at that time was personally participating in massive Black Lives Matter rallies consisting of hundreds and/or thousands of people. A district court subsequently ruled that this double standard — favoring the rights of race-based protesters over those of religious worshippers — was discriminatory and unconstitutional. When AliKhan was later questioned about the double standard during a June 2023 Senate hearing, she stated: “My understanding was that the nature of singing and other things [in religious services], epidemiologists thought could transmit COVID at a higher rate.”
• In Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a landmark religious freedom case that camse before the Supreme Court in 2012 — AliKhan asked the high Court to strike down the ministerial exemption that traditionally has given houses of worship the independence they need in order to manage their internal affairs as they deem necessary, and to elect their own ministers without interference from the government. “Nothing … in any right under the Religion Clauses grants religious organizations such a sweeping exception,” AliKhan declared. But the Supreme Court unanimously determined that her position was “untenable” and “hard to square with the text of the First Amendment, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”
• During her tenure as Solicitor General for the District of Columbia, AliKhan in 2018 submitted an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case asking the Department of Health & Human Services to block regulations allowing religious and moral exemptions to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate which required most health insurance plans to fully cover the costs associated with FDA-approved contraceptives, including “emergency contraception” – the so-called “morning-after pill.”
• In 2020, AliKhan defended the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue’s (OTR) decision to deny a request for a property-tax exemption for a Sikh temple and its related charitable trust. She argued that the trust was not eligible for the exemption for houses of worship, because it was a separate legal entity from the congregation. But in 2022, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the arguments that AliKhan had made on behalf of OTR violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against federal interference in the internal governance of religious organizations – such as their right to decide whether to register as a house of worship or as a 501(c)(3) charity.

Refusing to Reveal Her Views Regarding Vital Political & Social Issues

On June 7, 2023, AliKhan – who was seeking to be confirmed to the post of United States District Judge for the District of Columbia — was questioned by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the course of that day’s hearing, she angered a number of the Republican senators when she refused to articulate any of her personal opinions regarding major issues such as affirmative action, “systemic racism,” and voter ID laws.

In one noteworthy exchange, for instance, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked AliKhan: “Will you allow your personal or political beliefs to affect your decisions?” She replied, “No, Senator. My personal beliefs have never played a role in the positions I took as an advocate, nor do they play a role in the positions I take as a judge when I am neutrally deciding a case.” Kennedy then proceeded to state that he wished to ask the candidate “a few questions about how you view the world.”

“Do you believe that minorities need special help to succeed?” Kennedy asked AliKhan. “I don’t have a personal position,” she replied. “Have you thought about that?” Kennedy retorted. “I am aware that we have given preferential treatment …” said AliKhan. “Do you agree with that or disagree with it?” asked Kennedy. “It’s not a question, Senator, of whether I agree or disagree,” said AliKhan. “I apply the law as it comes before me.” When Kennedy then proceeded to ask essentially that same question two additional times, AliKhan stated: “As a sitting judge, it is inappropriate for me to comment on my personal views,” prompting Kennedy to say: “No it’s not. We’ve already established that you’re not going to let your personal beliefs interfere with your decisions, so I think you ought to tell us what your personal beliefs are.”

Next, Kennedy asked AliKhan: “Do you believe in systemic racism?” She answered, “That’s a question for sociologists and academics. I take each case as it comes before me on the individual facts.” “What is systemic racism?” Kennedy responded. “My understanding is that it’s a sociological theory that racism plays a systemic role,” said AliKhan, “but beyond that I’m not an academic, I’m not a sociologist. I am a judge and I apply the facts and the law in the cases that come before me.” “But you don’t have an opinion,” said Kennedy. “No, Senator, I do not,” AliKhan replied.

Kennedy then asked AliKhan, “Do you have an opinion on anything you’d like to share with us?” She answered: “Senator, as a sitting judge it’s inappropriate for me to comment on any personal views I might hold.” “Your view of the world does matter,” Kennedy responded. “If you never thought about the world, if you never thought about these issues, you’re not qualified to be a federal judge.”

In a separate line of questioning during the same Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri asked AliKhan: “Do you think voter ID requirements are illegal?” She replied, “I have not had occasion to consider that question in my 15 years of appellate practice.” “You don’t have any opinion on it at all?” asked Hawley, “I mean, it’s been much litigated …” “No, Senator, I don’t,” said AliKhan.

Blocking Trump’s Proposed Freeze on Certain Federal Spending

Under the direction of President Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a January 27, 2025 memo that was slated, starting at 5 pm the following day, to block the continuation of federal funding for a host of different programs and initiatives. This temporary funding freeze was intended to provide the Trump administration with some time to evaluate whether the agendas of the affected recipients were consistent with the President’s various objectives and executive orders.

Just minutes before the funding freeze was scheduled to take effect on January 28, however, four leftwing organizations — the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, the Main Street Alliance, and SAGE — collaborated to challenge the freeze by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge AliKhan heard arguments related to the case that same day. The plaintiffs contended that the OMB’s action was in violation of federal administrative law because it sought to suspend aid to beneficiaries who already had been approved for the funds. Citing “the specter of irreparable harm” that she thought could result from the Trump policy, AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order that delayed its implementation for six days, until February 3.

Describing Trump’s “irrational, imprudent” funding freeze as being “ill-conceived from the beginning” and “almost unfathomable” in its breadth, AliKhan on February 25 issued a preliminary injunction that indefinitely blocked the freeze from taking effect. Asserting further that there was “no clear statutory hook” for the Trump administration’s “broad assertion of power,” she wrote that “the scope of power OMB seeks to claim is breathtaking, and its ramifications are massive.” The nonprofits affected by the proposed funding freeze, AliKhan added, had presented a “mountain of evidence” showing that “even the threat of a funding freeze was enough to send countless organizations into complete disarray.” In a similar vein, she noted that the “Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic — and in some circumstances, fatal — to their members.”

Among the organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs in this case were: the American Association of University Professors, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation Of Teachers, the Center For Civil Rights and Critical Justice, the Institute for Justice, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Seeking to Stop Trump from Firing FTC Commissioners

Judge AliKhan was also a key figure in the 2025 case of Slaughter v. Trump, which centered around two plaintiffs — Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya — who had been lawfully appointed and confirmed as Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners whose terms in office were slated to expire in 2029 and 2026, respectively. But on March 18, 2025, both Slaughter and Bedoya received emails from the White House stating that they were being fired from their jobs because their continued service was “inconsistent with the [Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

On March 27, 2025, Slaughter and Bedoya named President Trump and the agency heads of the FTC as defendants in a lawsuit that they filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge AliKhan would preside over the case. The suit alleged that Trump and the FTC heads had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Separation of Powers by firing Slaughter and Bedoya without citing any specific grounds for removal — such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.

Characterizing Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter as “illegal and without effect,” AliKhan on July 17, 2025 granted summary judgment to Slaughter and ordered her reinstatement. In doing so, the judge affirmed that the FTC was an independent agency whose commissioners could only be removed for some specific, identifiable cause, and not merely at the will of the President. “Defendants repeatedly want the FTC to be something it is not: a subservient agency subject to the whims of the President and wholly lacking in autonomy,” AliKhan wrote in her opinion. “But that is not how Congress structured it. Undermining that autonomy by allowing the President to remove Commissioners at will inflicts an exceptionally unique harm distinct from the mine run of wrongful termination cases.”

In her July ruling as well, AliKhan referenced the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which: (a) first established that dismissal on policy grounds was unjustified, and (b) determined that the Constitution had never granted the President with “illimitable power of removal.” “It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court’s decisions—even one from ninety years ago,” AliKhan wrote in her decision. “Whatever the Humphrey’s Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now.”

Following Judge AliKhan’s ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a stay on her order. And on September 22, 2025, the Court – over the dissents of Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — did indeed grant the administration’s request for a stay, pending its review of the case. The Court also granted certiorari, agreeing that in December 2025 it would hear oral arguments for the case.

Footnotes:

1. – “Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees,” United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 2023.
   – “The Honorable Loren L. AliKhan,” 2022.
   – “Loren AliKhan,” Ballotpedia.org.
   – “Loren Linn AliKhan,” Federal Judicial Center.
   – “Partisan squabble mars debate on slate of Biden court picks,” by Benjamin S. Weiss, Courthouse News Sercice (June 7, 2023).
   – “Nominations of Loren L. AliKhan et al …” (December 2, 2021).