The Justice Department accused a judge Friday of “hostile and egregious misconduct” in her handling of a high profile case dealing with President Donald Trump’s executive order on trans-identifying troops in the military.
DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle informed Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan on Friday that United States District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes engaged in such conduct toward DOJ’s attorneys, suggesting bias and disrespect toward the DOJ’s position and imperiling a fair weighing of the case.
Reyes was handling Nicolas Talbott, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, a case dealing with Trump’s executive order on trans-identifying service members in the military. That executive order stated that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria” are not compatible with the high standards needed for “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” A separate Trump order also specifies that use of pronouns that don’t reflect an individual’s real, biological sex are “also inconsistent with those high standards.”
And while the military executive order does crack down on gender ideology within the United States military, it does not require that trans-identifying service members be discharged. Instead, it gives Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth 60 days to “amend the medical standards for accession and retention for the armed forces.”
A woman who identifies as a transgender man named Nicolas Talbott filed a lawsuit against Trump along with five other service members. Judge Reyes held a hearing in the case on February 18 and 19 — and during that hearing, made a number of statements that the DOJ is now saying constituted this “hostile and egregious misconduct.”
“While Judge Reyes was not sure exactly how many sexes there were, she hypothesized that could be ‘anywhere near about 30 different intersex examples,’” the DOJ letter states. “It was during these lines of questioning that Judge Reyes engaged in the unacceptable misconduct at issue in this complaint, questioning a Department of Justice attorney regarding his religious beliefs and then using him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics.”
Photo by Omar Marques/Getty Images
The DOJ stated that Reyes delivered a “long screed about how she believes President Trump has discriminated against individuals with gender dysphoria (including a claim that he was ‘literally erasing transgender people’)” before describing an email that she said she received, one that allegedly suggested that she “develop a relationship with Jesus,” and according to the DOJ, she then pivoted to questioning the DOJ attorney about his religious views.
“What do you think 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 allegedly asked. “Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’? Or do you think Jesus would say, ‘WTF? Of course, let them in?”
“This line of questioning is deeply problematic for several reasons,” the DOJ letter said. “First, the question has no relevance to the legal analysis of military policy. Second, it placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes’ personal religious beliefs.”
“Counsel, however, did not fall into that trap, but instead provided a professional response that highlights the impropriety of the question itself,” the letter continued, citing the counsel’s response: “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”
The DOJ also took issue with Reyes’ use of the phrase “WTF,” meaning, “what the f***,” as she questioned an attorney on his religious beliefs, saying that it “sheds light on the severity of the judge’s lack of professional decorum.”
This was not an isolated incident, the DOJ emphasized. The judge allegedly attempted to embarrass the DOJ counsel by “physically directing him as part of a rhetorical exercise in front of other attorneys, court personnel, and members of the public and press.”
The DOJ said that Reyes told its counsel: “I made a change to my standing order when I was in the back. My new standing order says that no one who has graduated from UVA Law School can appear before me. So, I need you to sit down, please. I need you to sit down.”
“When counsel complied with this directive, the judge continued her hypothetical about UVA law graduates being banned from her courtroom because ‘they’re all liars and lack integrity,’” the letter continued. “Only after Judge Reyes used counsel as a physical prop did she instruct him to come back up to continue the proceedings. This directive served no legitimate judicial purpose and transformed an attorney appearing before the court into an unwilling participant in the judge’s unnecessary demonstration.”
“Judge Reyes’ actions diminished respect for counsel and created an intimidating atmosphere inconsistent with the proper administration of justice,” the DOJ’s letter argues. “The physical direction of counsel for dramatic effect, regardless of the alleged point being made, represents an inappropriate exercise of judicial authority that risks undermining respect essential for fair proceedings.”
The DOJ’s Mizelle requests that “appropriate action” be taken to address Reyes’ violations and to make sure that “future proceedings in this court are conducted with the dignity and impartiality the public has a right to expect.”
“At minimum,” he wrote, “this matter warrants further investigation to determine whether these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct that requires more significant remedial measures. An independent, impartial judiciary is fundamental to our system of justice. When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined. The issues documented here transcend the specific case and parties involved and speak to core principles of the judiciary that must be upheld.”
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
The Justice Department accused a judge Friday of “hostile and egregious misconduct” in her handling of a high profile case dealing with President Donald Trump’s executive order on trans-identifying troops in the military.
DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle informed Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan on Friday that United States District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes engaged in such conduct toward DOJ’s attorneys, suggesting bias and disrespect toward the DOJ’s position and imperiling a fair weighing of the case.
Reyes was handling Nicolas Talbott, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, a case dealing with Trump’s executive order on trans-identifying service members in the military. That executive order stated that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria” are not compatible with the high standards needed for “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” A separate Trump order also specifies that use of pronouns that don’t reflect an individual’s real, biological sex are “also inconsistent with those high standards.”
And while the military executive order does crack down on gender ideology within the United States military, it does not require that trans-identifying service members be discharged. Instead, it gives Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth 60 days to “amend the medical standards for accession and retention for the armed forces.”
A woman who identifies as a transgender man named Nicolas Talbott filed a lawsuit against Trump along with five other service members. Judge Reyes held a hearing in the case on February 18 and 19 — and during that hearing, made a number of statements that the DOJ is now saying constituted this “hostile and egregious misconduct.”
“While Judge Reyes was not sure exactly how many sexes there were, she hypothesized that could be ‘anywhere near about 30 different intersex examples,’” the DOJ letter states. “It was during these lines of questioning that Judge Reyes engaged in the unacceptable misconduct at issue in this complaint, questioning a Department of Justice attorney regarding his religious beliefs and then using him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics.”
Photo by Omar Marques/Getty Images
The DOJ stated that Reyes delivered a “long screed about how she believes President Trump has discriminated against individuals with gender dysphoria (including a claim that he was ‘literally erasing transgender people’)” before describing an email that she said she received, one that allegedly suggested that she “develop a relationship with Jesus,” and according to the DOJ, she then pivoted to questioning the DOJ attorney about his religious views.
“What do you think 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 allegedly asked. “Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’? Or do you think Jesus would say, ‘WTF? Of course, let them in?”
“This line of questioning is deeply problematic for several reasons,” the DOJ letter said. “First, the question has no relevance to the legal analysis of military policy. Second, it placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes’ personal religious beliefs.”
“Counsel, however, did not fall into that trap, but instead provided a professional response that highlights the impropriety of the question itself,” the letter continued, citing the counsel’s response: “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”
The DOJ also took issue with Reyes’ use of the phrase “WTF,” meaning, “what the f***,” as she questioned an attorney on his religious beliefs, saying that it “sheds light on the severity of the judge’s lack of professional decorum.”
This was not an isolated incident, the DOJ emphasized. The judge allegedly attempted to embarrass the DOJ counsel by “physically directing him as part of a rhetorical exercise in front of other attorneys, court personnel, and members of the public and press.”
The DOJ said that Reyes told its counsel: “I made a change to my standing order when I was in the back. My new standing order says that no one who has graduated from UVA Law School can appear before me. So, I need you to sit down, please. I need you to sit down.”
“When counsel complied with this directive, the judge continued her hypothetical about UVA law graduates being banned from her courtroom because ‘they’re all liars and lack integrity,’” the letter continued. “Only after Judge Reyes used counsel as a physical prop did she instruct him to come back up to continue the proceedings. This directive served no legitimate judicial purpose and transformed an attorney appearing before the court into an unwilling participant in the judge’s unnecessary demonstration.”
“Judge Reyes’ actions diminished respect for counsel and created an intimidating atmosphere inconsistent with the proper administration of justice,” the DOJ’s letter argues. “The physical direction of counsel for dramatic effect, regardless of the alleged point being made, represents an inappropriate exercise of judicial authority that risks undermining respect essential for fair proceedings.”
The DOJ’s Mizelle requests that “appropriate action” be taken to address Reyes’ violations and to make sure that “future proceedings in this court are conducted with the dignity and impartiality the public has a right to expect.”
“At minimum,” he wrote, “this matter warrants further investigation to determine whether these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct that requires more significant remedial measures. An independent, impartial judiciary is fundamental to our system of justice. When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined. The issues documented here transcend the specific case and parties involved and speak to core principles of the judiciary that must be upheld.”
“}]]
