The Justice Department has lodged a complaint against a federal judge in Washington, alleging misconduct linked to hearings concerning President Donald Trump’s directive aimed at prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. The complaint, which emerged from the office of Attorney General Pam Bondi, marks a notable intensification of the criticisms that the Republican administration has leveled against the judiciary as it faces numerous legal challenges related to presidential policies.
The accusation, directed to the chief judge of the federal court in Washington, claims that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes behaved inappropriately by questioning a government lawyer about his faith, attempting to “embarrass” him during discussions on discrimination. The complaint expressly calls for an investigation into Reyes’ actions, underscoring that future hearings must uphold the “dignity and impartiality” that are expected by the public.
Reyes’ chambers were unreachable for immediate comment on this matter. During one tense moment in court, Reyes controversially stated that she had banned graduates of the University of Virginia law school — where the government attorney trained — from appearing before her because they were all “liars and lack integrity.” She subsequently asked the government lawyer to take a seat.
In another highlighted exchange, the judge posed a provocative question to the attorney: “What would Jesus say about telling a group of people that they are so worthless that we’re not going to let them into homeless shelters?” She further questioned, “Do you think Jesus would agree with that?” The government attorney replied that the U.S. would refrain from speculating on the opinions of Jesus concerning the issue.
Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for Bondi, emphasized the necessity of an independent and impartial judiciary, noting that any indication of bias or disrespectful behavior from judges undermines public trust in the justice system. Reyes, recognized for her forthright criticisms of legal professionals from both sides, is currently presiding over various contentious legal challenges. Earlier this month, she reprimanded former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who was advocating for government watchdogs protesting their terminations, stating that it was “beyond comprehension” to hold a hearing on such a matter instead of settling it quickly via a phone call.
The Trump administration has been increasingly vocal against the judiciary after several judges obstructed parts of its expansive agenda introduced early in his presidency. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused judges of behaving like “activists” instead of impartial interpreters of the law. Supporters of Trump have circulated images of judges online, made personal allegations against their families, and even hinted at the possibility of ignoring judicial rulings.
Reyes, nominated by President Joe Biden, has indicated that her ruling on whether to provisionally block the enforcement of Trump’s order won’t occur until early March. Her inquiries and comments during the hearings have suggested a significant skepticism regarding the administration’s justification for the controversial policy shift while also praising several active-duty service members involved in the lawsuit against the order.
The executive order announced on January 27 asserts that the sexual identity of transgender service members is incompatible with the commitments of a soldier to an honorable and disciplined lifestyle, claiming it could negatively affect military readiness. This order mandates Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to implement a revised policy.
The lawsuit has been initiated by six transgender individuals currently in active military service alongside two others seeking enlistment, who are urging the court to suspend the Trump administration’s enforcement of the order. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs argue that the directive betrays a “hostility” and an unconstitutional animus against transgender individuals. The order also posits that using pronouns that do not align with an individual’s biological sex conflicts with the government’s assertion of maintaining high standards for military readiness, cohesion, and integrity.
