The Justice Department filed a complaint Friday accusing a federal judge in Washington of misconduct during hearings over President Donald Trump’s executive order that calls for banning transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military.
The complaint filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, marks an escalation of the Republican administration’s criticism of the judiciary, which has been weighing a slew of legal challenges to the Republican president’s actions.
The complaint to the chief judge of Washington’s federal court accuses U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and trying to “embarrass” the attorney with a rhetorical exercise during an exchange about discrimination. It is seeking an investigation, saying “appropriate action” should be taken to ensure that future hearings are conducted with the “dignity and impartiality the public has a right to expect.”
A representative from Reyes’ chambers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
During the rhetorical exercise, Reyes told the attorney that she changed the rules in her courtroom to bar graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing before her because they are all “liars and lack integrity.” She instructed the government attorney, a graduate of the school, to sit down.
In another exchange cited in the complaint, the judge asked the attorney what “Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters?” She continued, “Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me?’”
The government lawyer responded, “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”
“An independent impartial judiciary is fundamental to our system of justice,” Mizelle wrote. “When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined.”
Reyes is known for her stern rebukes of lawyers on both sides. In a different case earlier this month, she verbally rebuked former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who’s representing eight government watchdogs suing the Trump administration over their firing. She denied an emergency motion and called it “beyond comprehension” to hold a hearing on a matter rather than resolving it in a “five-minute phone call.”
The Trump administration has been ramping up its criticism of judges over rulings blocking parts of his ambitious agenda rolled out in the first weeks of his administration.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt earlier this month accused judges of acting as “activists rather than honest arbiters of the law.” Supporters have circulated pictures of judges online, made claims about their families and suggested that the Republican president simply ignore their orders.
Reyes, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, indicated that she won’t rule before early March on whether to temporarily block the Trump administration from enforcing the order, which plaintiffs’ attorneys have said illegally discriminates against transgender troops.
Her questions and remarks, however, suggested she is deeply skeptical of the administration’s reasoning for ordering a policy change. Reyes also lauded the service of several active-duty troops who sued to block the order.
“If you were in a foxhole, would you care about these individuals’ gender identity?” the judge asked the government attorney, who answered that it “would not be a primary concern of mine.”
Trump’s Jan. 27 order claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. It requires Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a revised policy.
Six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military sued to block the Trump administration from enforcing the order. In a court filing, plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Trump’s order openly expresses “hostility” and constitutionally impermissible “animus” toward transgender people.
Trump’s order also says that “use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex” is inconsistent with a government policy to “establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
Read the full article here
