The U.S. Department of Justice submitted a formal complaint on Friday against a federal judge in Washington, alleging misconduct during court proceedings related to President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at banning transgender individuals from serving in the military.
Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed the complaint, which signifies an intensification of the Republican administration’s criticism of the judiciary. This judicial branch has been dealing with numerous legal controversies surrounding the actions of the Republican president.
The complaint, addressed to the chief judge of the federal court in Washington, claims that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes inappropriately probed a government attorney about his religious beliefs. It specifically accuses her of attempting to “embarrass” him during a discussion about discrimination. The complaint calls for an investigation and insists that “appropriate action” be taken to maintain the “dignity and impartiality” that the public is entitled to expect in court proceedings.
As of Friday, a representative from Judge Reyes’ chambers had not responded to requests for comment.
One notable exchange mentioned in the complaint involved Judge Reyes claiming she had banned graduates of the University of Virginia law school from her courtroom, stating that they were all “liars” and “lacked integrity.” She directed the attorney, a UVA alumnus, to sit down during this interaction.
Another exchange cited in the complaint involved a question from Reyes that posed a moral dilemma regarding how Jesus would react to denying certain individuals access to homeless shelters. In response, the government lawyer stated that the United States would not speculate on what Jesus might say about such matters.
Mizelle emphasized the importance of an “independent impartial judiciary” as a cornerstone of the justice system, arguing that judges exhibiting apparent bias or disrespect towards counsel erode public trust in the judicial system.
Judge Reyes is known for her strict approach to lawyers on both sides, as evidenced by another incident earlier this month when she chastised former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman. In that case, where Waxman represented eight government watchdogs suing the Trump administration over wrongful firings, she deemed it “beyond comprehension” to hold a lengthy hearing when it could potentially be resolved with a brief phone conversation.
The Trump administration has noticeably heightened its criticism of the judiciary, particularly relating to rulings that obstruct elements of the president’s objectives established early in his term. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently accused judges of operating as “activists” rather than impartial judges of the law. Some supporters have circulated disparaging images of judges online and even called for the Republican president to disregard their rulings.
Judge Reyes, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, has indicated that she will not reach a decision before early March on whether to put a temporary hold on implementing Trump’s controversial order. The plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case argue that the policy discriminates against transgender members of the military.
In her questioning, Reyes appeared to express skepticism towards the administration’s rationale for the policy changes, praising the contributions of several active-duty service members involved in challenging the order. She asked the government attorney whether the gender identity of an individual would matter in a life-and-death situation, to which he replied it would not be a primary concern for him.
Trump’s January 27 directive asserts that the gender identity of transgender service members contradicts the commitment expected of a soldier to lead an honorable, truthful, and disciplined life, even in personal matters. Moreover, it states that such identities can diminish military readiness and requires Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to revise existing policy.
In a lawsuit to block the enforcement of the order, six active-duty transgender service members along with two individuals aspiring to join the military argue that Trump’s executive action reveals a blatant “hostility” and legally impermissible “animus” toward transgender individuals. The order also claims that “using pronouns inaccurately reflecting an individual’s sex” opposes a government initiative to maintain high standards for troop readiness and integrity.
