The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a formal misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, alleging bias and inappropriate conduct during court proceedings in a high-profile case challenging the Trump administration’s military transgender ban.
The written complaint, addressed to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was signed by Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi. It centers on Judge Reyes’ handling of Nicolas Talbott v. Donald J. Trump—a lawsuit brought by two LGBTQ advocacy groups opposing executive orders that barred transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
Read More: Supreme Court allows government watchdog dismissed by Trump to temporarily keep position
Background of the Case
The case stems from a series of executive actions under President Donald Trump that reversed earlier policies allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the armed forces. These orders included:
Recognizing only two sexes under federal definitions.
Blocking federal education funds to institutions promoting the idea of gender fluidity.
Directing the State Department to stop issuing documents with a third gender marker.
Revoking federal employees’ right to gender-affirming healthcare.
Rolling back equal access protections for transgender individuals in homeless shelters.
LGBTQ advocacy groups argued that these measures discriminated against transgender Americans, violated constitutional protections, and undermined military readiness. The DOJ defended the orders as lawful exercises of presidential authority.
DOJ’s Allegations of Misconduct
According to the DOJ’s complaint, the transcript from the proceedings reveals “multiple instances where Judge Reyes’ conduct compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias.” The DOJ contends that these moments raise “serious concerns” about her ability to remain impartial in the matter.
One focal point of the complaint involves comments Judge Reyes allegedly made while questioning DOJ attorney Jason Lynch. In addressing the Trump administration’s rollback of transgender access to homeless shelters, Reyes reportedly asked:
“What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless… that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me?’ Or do you think Jesus would say, ‘WTF? Of course, let them in?'”
DOJ attorneys argued this line of questioning was “deeply problematic” because it placed government counsel in a position where any answer risked appearing unresponsive, or worse, speculating about religious beliefs unrelated to the case.
The UVA Law School Hypothetical
The DOJ also objected to another instance during the hearing, where Judge Reyes drew an analogy comparing the military transgender ban to a hypothetical ban on graduates from the University of Virginia School of Law appearing in her courtroom.
She reportedly told DOJ counsel:
“My new standing order says that no one who graduated from UVA Law School can appear before me. So, I need you to sit down, please. I need you to sit down.”
Once the attorney complied, Reyes allegedly continued, stating that UVA law graduates were “all liars and lack integrity”—before using the example to illustrate her view of discriminatory policies. She then asked the government lawyer if he could see how such reasoning was unfair.
The DOJ’s complaint asserts that using counsel as a “physical prop” for a rhetorical exercise undermined courtroom decorum and the dignity of legal proceedings.
Judge’s Remarks Toward DOJ Counsel
While much of the DOJ’s complaint focuses on criticism of Judge Reyes, the letter also notes that she occasionally commended DOJ lawyer Jason Lynch, acknowledging his professionalism in presenting a difficult case. At one point, she reportedly told the courtroom that Lynch was doing “a credible job” under challenging circumstances.
However, the DOJ argues that isolated compliments do not offset what they view as repeated lapses in judicial neutrality.
Frequently Asked Questions:
What is the DOJ’s complaint against Judge Ana Reyes about?
The DOJ accuses Judge Ana Reyes of bias and misconduct during court proceedings in a case challenging the Trump administration’s military transgender ban. The complaint cites inappropriate remarks, biased questioning, and hypotheticals that allegedly undermined courtroom decorum.
Which case is at the center of the complaint?
The complaint concerns Nicolas Talbott v. Donald J. Trump, a lawsuit filed by LGBTQ advocacy groups challenging executive orders that barred transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
What specific incidents does the DOJ cite as misconduct?
The DOJ points to instances where Judge Reyes questioned government counsel about religious beliefs, used personal hypotheticals comparing discrimination to banning UVA Law School graduates, and allegedly sided with plaintiffs during arguments.
How did Judge Reyes respond to DOJ counsel during the proceedings?
Judge Reyes both criticized and praised DOJ attorney Jason Lynch. While raising sharp hypotheticals, she also acknowledged that he presented the government’s case professionally under difficult circumstances.
What actions is the DOJ requesting?
The DOJ is asking the D.C. Circuit to investigate the matter, determine whether misconduct occurred, and decide if further remedial measures or disciplinary actions are necessary.
Why is this case significant?
The case highlights tensions between judicial independence and impartiality in politically sensitive lawsuits, particularly those involving civil rights and transgender military service.
Could Judge Reyes face disciplinary action?
If the investigation finds that Judge Reyes violated judicial conduct rules, possible outcomes range from a warning or reprimand to recusal from related cases.
Conclusion
The DOJ’s misconduct complaint against Judge Ana Reyes adds a new layer of controversy to the already polarizing debate over transgender military service. At its core, the dispute raises critical questions about how judges balance personal convictions with their duty to remain impartial in court. As the D.C. Circuit considers whether to investigate, the outcome could shape not only the future of this specific case but also broader expectations for judicial conduct in politically charged matters.
