{"id":109131,"date":"2025-02-24T17:02:57","date_gmt":"2025-02-25T01:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/24\/doj-demands-safe-space-after-mean-judge-lady-made-them-sad-with-all-those-hard-questions\/"},"modified":"2025-02-24T17:02:57","modified_gmt":"2025-02-25T01:02:57","slug":"doj-demands-safe-space-after-mean-judge-lady-made-them-sad-with-all-those-hard-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/24\/doj-demands-safe-space-after-mean-judge-lady-made-them-sad-with-all-those-hard-questions\/","title":{"rendered":"DOJ Demands Safe Space After Mean Judge Lady Made Them Sad With All Those Hard Questions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Cue the world\u2019s tiniest violin for the new leadership at the Department of Justice. Government lawyers have made a public show of threatening legislators for calling Elon Musk a dick<\/a> and hemorrhaging senior attorneys who refuse to engage in unethical conduct<\/a>, but they haven\u2019t so much \u201csuccessfully argued in court\u201d lately. <\/p>\n

And it seems all the losing has taken a toll because the Department just lodged its Petition To Stop Hurting Our Feelings<\/a><\/em> with the D.C. Circuit after Judge Ana Reyes took a DOJ lawyer to the woodshed<\/a> for the government\u2019s slipshod defense of its effort to ban transgender service members.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe transcript reveals multiple instances where Judge Reyes\u2019 misconduct compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias, raising serious concerns about her ability to preside impartially in this matter,\u201d unironically wrote DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle about a proceeding where the government attacked the dignity of Americans serving their country in an effort to institutionalize gender bias.<\/p>\n

Last week, the DOJ appeared before Judge Reyes seeking to protect a Trump executive order banning transgender service members. Or, to be more precise, seeking to avoid the fact that this amounts to illegal discrimination by claiming transgender people are by definition dishonorable, liars, and undisciplined in violation of the armed services honor code. Judge Reyes challenged this as impermissible pretext, becoming increasingly exasperated by DOJ Jason Lynch\u2019s evasiveness.<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, judges shouldn\u2019t lord their position over counsel. That said, judges aren\u2019t obligated to sit idly by while unprepared lawyers waste their time. Mizelle requests to speak with the manager \u2014 in this case, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan \u2014 arguing that Judge Reyes fell on the wrong side of this line:<\/p>\n

\n

After a long screed about how she believes President Trump has discriminated against individuals with gender dysphoria (including a claim that he was \u201cliterally erasing transgender people\u201d), Judge Reyes describes receiving an email suggesting that she develop a relationship with Jesus. She then uses this aside as an excuse to randomly pivot to questioning the DOJ attorney about his religious views: \u201cWhat do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we\u2019re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think
Jesus would be, \u2018Sounds right to me\u2019? Or do you think Jesus would say, \u2018WTF? Of course, let them in.?\u201d This line of questioning is deeply problematic for several reasons. First, the question has no relevance to the legal analysis of military policy. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Asking the government about Jesus would<\/em> be inappropriate except TRUMP EXPLICITLY SAID the purpose of his policies toward transgender folks is to protect Christians against affirming \u201cradical transgender ideology against their faith<\/a>.\u201d Trump avoided that language in this<\/em> executive order, but it\u2019s all over the rest of his work on this subject. Given that the DOJ styles itself as Trump\u2019s personal lawyers<\/a>, it seems quite relevant to probe how this policy relates to the government\u2019s take on Jesus. If Jesus might not object, how can this amount to blanket anti-Christian bias? That\u2019s not a wild line of inquiry for the judge.<\/p>\n

\n

Second, it placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes\u2019 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: \u201cThe United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yeah, Trump did that already. To borrow from a different exchange between Judge Reyes and Lynch at the same hearing: \u201cIt\u2019s not like I randomly picked you off the street. You\u2019re the government\u2019s representative here.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Third, sporadic use of the inappropriate abbreviation \u201cWTF\u201d during the questioning of an attorney on his religious beliefs sheds light on the severity of the judge\u2019s lack of professional decorum.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

LOL. The DOJ\u2019s Victorian fainting couch suffered a WORKOUT last week.<\/p>\n

\n

Unfortunately, Judge Reyes\u2019 misconduct was not isolated to a single incident. The transcript also reveals that Judge Reyes attempted to embarrass 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. During an exchange about discrimination, Judge Reyes abruptly instructs DOJ counsel: \u201cI 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.\u201d When counsel complied with this directive, the judge continued her hypothetical about UVA law graduates being banned from her courtroom because \u201cthey\u2019re all liars and lack integrity.\u201d 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\u2019s unnecessary demonstration.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It will shock you not at all to learn that this is bullshit. Judge Reyes embarked on this demonstration after asking Lynch to explain how this policy \u2014 based solely in attacking the integrity of transgender service members \u2014 isn\u2019t a showing of animus.<\/p>\n

\n

LYNCH: Not in any constitutional \u2014
JUDGE REYES: In a commonsense way. This is a policy from the President of the United States affecting thousands of people \u2026 to call an entire group of people, lying dishonest people who are undisciplined, immodest and have no integrity. How is that anything other than showing animus?
LYNCH: I don\u2019t have an answer for you.
JUDGE REYES: You do have an answer, you just don\u2019t want to give it\u2026 People can make solid arguments as to why some or even most transgender people shouldn\u2019t be in the military \u2026 We\u2019re dealing with unadulterated animus. We are dealing with the president of the United States dealing with a group of people serving their country \u2026 calling them liars.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Judge Reyes conducted the UVA demonstration because Lynch claimed \u2014 even if the judge suspected disingenuously \u2014 to not be able to comprehend what \u201canimus\u201d means. The demonstration shouldn\u2019t have been necessary, but since the DOJ decided to pretend they were born yesterday, the judge indulged.<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For lawyers committed to champion a particularly toxic brand of cis-hetero patriarchy\u2026 how do they justify being such crybabies?<\/p>\n

(Letter on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Justice Department files complaint against judge weighing challenge to Trump\u2019s transgender troop ban<\/a> [AP]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Judge Obliterates DOJ Lawyer At Transgender Ban Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post DOJ Demands Safe Space After Mean Judge Lady Made Them Sad With All Those Hard Questions<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Cue the world\u2019s tiniest violin for the new leadership at the Department of Justice. Government lawyers have made a public show of threatening legislators for calling Elon Musk a dick<\/a> and hemorrhaging senior attorneys who refuse to engage in unethical conduct<\/a>, but they haven\u2019t so much \u201csuccessfully argued in court\u201d lately. <\/p>\n

And it seems all the losing has taken a toll because the Department just lodged its Petition To Stop Hurting Our Feelings<\/a><\/em> with the D.C. Circuit after Judge Ana Reyes took a DOJ lawyer to the woodshed<\/a> for the government\u2019s slipshod defense of its effort to ban transgender service members.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe transcript reveals multiple instances where Judge Reyes\u2019 misconduct compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias, raising serious concerns about her ability to preside impartially in this matter,\u201d unironically wrote DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle about a proceeding where the government attacked the dignity of Americans serving their country in an effort to institutionalize gender bias.<\/p>\n

Last week, the DOJ appeared before Judge Reyes seeking to protect a Trump executive order banning transgender service members. Or, to be more precise, seeking to avoid the fact that this amounts to illegal discrimination by claiming transgender people are by definition dishonorable, liars, and undisciplined in violation of the armed services honor code. Judge Reyes challenged this as impermissible pretext, becoming increasingly exasperated by DOJ Jason Lynch\u2019s evasiveness.<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, judges shouldn\u2019t lord their position over counsel. That said, judges aren\u2019t obligated to sit idly by while unprepared lawyers waste their time. Mizelle requests to speak with the manager \u2014 in this case, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan \u2014 arguing that Judge Reyes fell on the wrong side of this line:<\/p>\n

\n

After a long screed about how she believes President Trump has discriminated against individuals with gender dysphoria (including a claim that he was \u201cliterally erasing transgender people\u201d), Judge Reyes describes receiving an email suggesting that she develop a relationship with Jesus. She then uses this aside as an excuse to randomly pivot to questioning the DOJ attorney about his religious views: \u201cWhat do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we\u2019re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think
Jesus would be, \u2018Sounds right to me\u2019? Or do you think Jesus would say, \u2018WTF? Of course, let them in.?\u201d This line of questioning is deeply problematic for several reasons. First, the question has no relevance to the legal analysis of military policy. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Asking the government about Jesus would<\/em> be inappropriate except TRUMP EXPLICITLY SAID the purpose of his policies toward transgender folks is to protect Christians against affirming \u201cradical transgender ideology against their faith<\/a>.\u201d Trump avoided that language in this<\/em> executive order, but it\u2019s all over the rest of his work on this subject. Given that the DOJ styles itself as Trump\u2019s personal lawyers<\/a>, it seems quite relevant to probe how this policy relates to the government\u2019s take on Jesus. If Jesus might not object, how can this amount to blanket anti-Christian bias? That\u2019s not a wild line of inquiry for the judge.<\/p>\n

\n

Second, it placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes\u2019 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: \u201cThe United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yeah, Trump did that already. To borrow from a different exchange between Judge Reyes and Lynch at the same hearing: \u201cIt\u2019s not like I randomly picked you off the street. You\u2019re the government\u2019s representative here.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Third, sporadic use of the inappropriate abbreviation \u201cWTF\u201d during the questioning of an attorney on his religious beliefs sheds light on the severity of the judge\u2019s lack of professional decorum.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

LOL. The DOJ\u2019s Victorian fainting couch suffered a WORKOUT last week.<\/p>\n

\n

Unfortunately, Judge Reyes\u2019 misconduct was not isolated to a single incident. The transcript also reveals that Judge Reyes attempted to embarrass 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. During an exchange about discrimination, Judge Reyes abruptly instructs DOJ counsel: \u201cI 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.\u201d When counsel complied with this directive, the judge continued her hypothetical about UVA law graduates being banned from her courtroom because \u201cthey\u2019re all liars and lack integrity.\u201d 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\u2019s unnecessary demonstration.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It will shock you not at all to learn that this is bullshit. Judge Reyes embarked on this demonstration after asking Lynch to explain how this policy \u2014 based solely in attacking the integrity of transgender service members \u2014 isn\u2019t a showing of animus.<\/p>\n

\n

LYNCH: Not in any constitutional \u2014
JUDGE REYES: In a commonsense way. This is a policy from the President of the United States affecting thousands of people \u2026 to call an entire group of people, lying dishonest people who are undisciplined, immodest and have no integrity. How is that anything other than showing animus?
LYNCH: I don\u2019t have an answer for you.
JUDGE REYES: You do have an answer, you just don\u2019t want to give it\u2026 People can make solid arguments as to why some or even most transgender people shouldn\u2019t be in the military \u2026 We\u2019re dealing with unadulterated animus. We are dealing with the president of the United States dealing with a group of people serving their country \u2026 calling them liars.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Judge Reyes conducted the UVA demonstration because Lynch claimed \u2014 even if the judge suspected disingenuously \u2014 to not be able to comprehend what \u201canimus\u201d means. The demonstration shouldn\u2019t have been necessary, but since the DOJ decided to pretend they were born yesterday, the judge indulged.<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For lawyers committed to champion a particularly toxic brand of cis-hetero patriarchy\u2026 how do they justify being such crybabies?<\/p>\n

(Letter on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Justice Department files complaint against judge weighing challenge to Trump\u2019s transgender troop ban<\/a> [AP]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Judge Obliterates DOJ Lawyer At Transgender Ban Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cue the world\u2019s tiniest violin for the new leadership at the Department of Justice. Government lawyers have made a public show of threatening legislators for calling Elon Musk a dick and hemorrhaging senior attorneys who refuse to engage in unethical conduct, but they haven\u2019t so much \u201csuccessfully argued in court\u201d lately. And it seems all […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":109091,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Headshot-300x200-nogUSE.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109131\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/109091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}