On Friday, the Justice Department lodged a formal complaint against a federal judge in Washington, alleging misconduct during hearings regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order, which aims to prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
The complaint, initiated by Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, represents a heightened response from the Republican administration towards the judiciary as it evaluates several legal disputes related to the president’s policies.
This complaint, submitted to the chief judge of the district court in Washington, accuses U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of improperly questioning a government attorney about his religious views and attempting to “embarrass” him through a rhetorical scenario during discussions on discrimination. The department calls for an investigation to ensure that future judicial proceedings uphold the “dignity and impartiality” that the public expects.
Reyes’ office has chosen not to comment on the allegations at this time.
During one notable exchange, Reyes stated that she modified her courtroom procedures to prevent graduates from the University of Virginia law school from practicing before her due to her opinions on their character. She then directed the government attorney, who was a UVA graduate, to take a seat.
In a different interaction highlighted in the complaint, Reyes posed a provocative question to the lawyer regarding what she believed Jesus might say about excluding a defined group from assistance. “Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me?” she asked. The lawyer replied, “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”
Mizelle emphasized the importance of an unbiased judiciary in a voluntary justice system, stating, “When judges display apparent bias or treat counsel with disrespect, it erodes public trust in our legal framework.”
Reyes is recognized for her stern attitude towards legal representatives in various cases. Just weeks earlier, she admonished former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who was advocating for a group of watchdog organizations suing the Trump administration after their dismissal. In that instance, she expressed incredulity at the notion of holding a hearing instead of addressing the issue with a simple phone call.
The Trump administration has increasingly voiced its dissatisfaction with judicial decisions that have hindered various aspects of its policy agenda since the inception of its term.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused judges earlier this month of acting as “activists rather than impartial interpreters of the law.” Additionally, supporters of the administration have circulated images of judges online, questioned their backgrounds, and suggested that the president disregard their rulings.
Reyes, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, has indicated that she will not render a decision regarding the Trump administration’s enforcement of the order until early March. Legal representatives for the plaintiffs argue that the executive order unjustly discriminates against transgender military personnel.
While her inquiries and commentary seemed to reflect skepticism about the administration’s stance, Reyes also praised contributions from active-duty personnel involved in the lawsuit. At one point, she asked the government lawyer, “If you were in a foxhole, would you care about these individuals’ gender identity?” to which he replied that it “would not be a primary concern of mine.”
The executive order issued on January 27 asserts that the gender identity of transgender troops “contradicts a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in personal matters” and claims it has implications for military effectiveness. It tasks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with developing a revised policy.
In response, six active-duty transgender servicemembers and two individuals seeking to enlist filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s orders. Plaintiffs contend that the executive order displays “hostility” and an unconstitutionally biased attitude towards transgender individuals.
Additionally, the order states that “using pronouns that inaccurately portray an individual’s sex” is incompatible with a government policy aimed at maintaining “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
