Report: One-Third of D.C. District Court Judges Are Foreign-Born

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — one of the most influential courts in the nation — is under fire for becoming a breeding ground for judicial activism and questionable qualifications. Critics are alarmed by a disturbing trend: five of its judges were born outside the United States, raising serious concerns about whether individuals with foreign ties and limited judicial experience should be making crucial decisions on national security and immigration.

This powerful district court, which holds the authority to decide on high-stakes cases affecting every American, consists of 15 main judges. Shockingly, a significant number of them lack prior judicial experience, yet they hold the power to shape the nation’s future. Many of these appointments were made by Democratic presidents, reflecting an agenda that prioritizes diversity and identity politics over proven qualifications and dedication to American legal principles.

Beth Brelje of The Federalist recently sounded the alarm, questioning the wisdom of entrusting such vital decisions to judges who may lack a deep-rooted understanding of American traditions and values. Conservatives are rightfully worried that this approach could undermine the judiciary’s integrity, leaving the nation vulnerable to legal interpretations that conflict with constitutional principles.

The shift toward appointing foreign-born judges with little to no judicial background began during Barack Obama’s presidency. In 2014, Obama nominated Judge Tanya Chutkan, originally from Kingston, Jamaica, to the district court. Despite her complete lack of prior judicial experience, Chutkan was given significant authority. Her controversial orders — such as demanding that Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) disclose sensitive plans — have sparked outrage among conservatives, who argue that such decisions jeopardize national interests.

Obama’s reckless approach did not stop there. He also appointed Judge Amit P. Mehta, born in Patan, Gujarat, India, to the court. Mehta had no judicial experience before his nomination, yet he now oversees four of the politically charged January 6 cases. This blatant disregard for qualifications over political loyalty has raised eyebrows across the country.

Building on Obama’s questionable legacy, President Joe Biden has further eroded the integrity of the D.C. District Court by appointing three more foreign-born judges. In 2021, Biden nominated Judge Ana Cecilia Reyes, who hails from Montevideo, Uruguay. Despite her lack of judicial experience, she was hailed as the first openly LGBT Latina on the court, highlighting the administration’s obsession with identity politics rather than judicial merit.

Reyes has shown a willingness to impose progressive policies, having openly opposed Trump’s executive order on “gender dysphoria” and military readiness. Her decisions reflect a willingness to put ideological agendas ahead of constitutional duties, sparking intense criticism from conservative circles.

Another concerning appointment by Biden is Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, born in Canada to Egyptian parents. Ali became a U.S. citizen just six years before his appointment and holds a background in software engineering rather than law. His nomination not only lacks merit but also raises concerns about his ability to truly understand and defend American values. His outspoken opposition to Trump’s 2017 travel ban, which aimed to secure the nation from potential threats, demonstrates a blatant disregard for national security.

Adding to this concerning pattern is Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, born in Trinidad and Tobago, whose appointment has been met with similar skepticism. Critics argue that her foreign birth and progressive viewpoints could lead to decisions that undermine traditional American values.

The Biden administration’s judicial appointments are clearly driven by a desire to reshape the judiciary into a tool for advancing leftist causes. This approach not only threatens the stability of the legal system but also puts the nation at risk by handing power to unqualified individuals with questionable allegiances.

By focusing on diversity quotas rather than judicial competence, the administration has eroded the public’s trust in the courts. Americans are right to question whether judges born and raised in foreign countries can truly appreciate and uphold the Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The presence of foreign-born judges on the D.C. District Court poses a grave risk to the country’s security and legal integrity. These judges are tasked with making decisions on some of the most sensitive issues facing the nation — from immigration policies to national defense measures. Allowing individuals without a lifelong connection to American principles to wield such power is reckless and dangerous.

For instance, Judge Chutkan’s willingness to issue orders that force the release of sensitive government plans reveals a troubling disregard for national security. Similarly, Judge Mehta’s handling of January 6 cases has been seen as overtly partisan, raising questions about whether political motivations are guiding his judicial decisions.

Fox News and the New York Post have joined the chorus of conservative voices expressing alarm over these appointments. They rightly point out that prioritizing diversity over experience is a recipe for judicial disaster. The courts should be bastions of constitutional fidelity, not experimental platforms for progressive social engineering.

Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators are increasingly demanding greater scrutiny of judicial appointments. They argue that the integrity of the judiciary is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Ensuring that judges have not only the experience but also a deep commitment to American values is essential to maintaining the country’s legal foundations.

The appointment of foreign-born judges without prior judicial experience has sparked an unprecedented wave of public distrust. How can Americans have faith in a judiciary that seems more concerned with meeting diversity quotas than safeguarding constitutional rights? The fear is that these judges may harbor perspectives that conflict with the nation’s foundational principles, putting at risk the fair and unbiased administration of justice.

The conservative base, alongside concerned citizens, demands answers and accountability. They argue that the focus should be on appointing judges who understand American history and legal traditions, rather than those whose backgrounds and ideologies are at odds with the nation’s core values.

The growing unease over foreign-born judges with minimal qualifications highlights a pressing need to reassess how judicial nominations are made. Instead of using the courts to push progressive agendas, the Biden administration should focus on selecting judges with proven track records of impartiality, integrity, and a firm commitment to the Constitution.

The very fabric of American jurisprudence is at stake. By prioritizing diversity and political ideology over competence and dedication to constitutional principles, the current administration risks undermining the judiciary’s credibility. Conservatives must continue to sound the alarm and advocate for reforms that ensure only the most qualified and constitutionally faithful judges serve on the nation’s most critical courts.

If the courts are to remain bastions of justice rather than political battlegrounds, Americans must demand that their judges reflect unwavering dedication to the principles upon which the nation was founded. Anything less is a betrayal of the public trust and a direct threat to the future of American democracy.