Aug 06, 2024 08:59 AM IST
Amit Mehta was born in Gujarat in 1971 and moved to the US with his parents at the age of one.
Amit Mehta, an Indian-origin judge appointed by former US President Barack Obama, ruled that Google violated antitrust law after a highly anticipated and massive trial involving the tech giant. The trial was centered on allegations by US Department of Justice (DOJ) and several American states that said that Google employed illegal business practices to maintain dominance of its search engine. The trial began in September last year and continued for 10 weeks.
Here are top points on Amit Mehta who oversaw and ruled in Google’s antitrust judgement:
1. Amit Mehta was appointed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2014.
2. He was born in Gujarat in 1971 and moved to the US with his parents at the age of one. Amit Mehta received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University before pursuing a law degree.
3. He is the first Asian-Pacific American to be sworn into the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
4. Amit Mehta began his legal career in 1997 after graduating from the University of Virginia School of Law.
5. After getting a law degree, he worked at law firms like Latham & Watkins and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, representing high-profile clients.
6. He served as the attorney for former Representative Tom Feeney and helped former International Monetary Fund (IMF) president Dominique Strauss-Kahn defeat criminal assault charges in a New York court.
7. Judge Amit Mehta has shown his love for music during various rulings. In a 2015 opinion, he mentioned his favorite musical artists, including Jay-Z, Kanye West, Drake, and Eminem and in a 2018 opinion, he quoted lyrics from Beyoncé’s song “Sorry”.
8. Amit Mehta has previously ruled on cases including those related to the January 6 Capitol riots in which he denied former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss civil lawsuits holding him accountable for inciting the riot. He wrote in the ruling, “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.”