He did not, ultimately, get serious. By the end of Friday\u2019s hearing in DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior<\/em>, Reyes had opened a formal inquiry<\/a> into whether Justice Department and Interior officials and lawyers made material misrepresentations to the court. She proposed assigning the matter to a special master\u2026 unless DOJ would rather Reyes do it herself.<\/p>\n Perhaps she just wanted to check if the DOJ is as obtuse as it pretended to be.<\/p>\n This case fits squarely into Trump\u2019s preference for mounting tacky D.C. renovation projects over the business of governing, an obsession that manifested yesterday, using his a midterm election closing argument to rant about the reflecting pool<\/a> that he ruined<\/a>. Trump wants to take the East Potomac Golf Course \u2014 a 1920s Walter Travis public course where nine holes cost $17 \u2014 and turn it into a \u201cWorld Class Championship Golf Course.\u201d Which, presumably, he\u2019ll name after himself until he can convert Arlington Cemetery into a companion course.<\/p>\n On October 10, the Park Service bulldozed hundreds of trees without meaningful notice. A furious Judge Reyes unloaded on the DOJ, noting that \u201cI was hearing from everybody on plaintiffs\u2019 side that this was going to happen and I said repeatedly, no, I trust the government.\u201d For their part, government lawyers keep telling the judge that they were doing their best, which she corrected to \u201cyou did your absolute worst<\/a>.\u201d She then issued a TRO. The DOJ then moved to disqualify her<\/a> while Trump took to social media to call her insane<\/a>. <\/p>\n Now Trump has posted that the course will close for renovations \u201cIMMEDIATELY!\u201d<\/p>\n DOJ, stuck with a president won\u2019t stop confessing, told the court to just not believe him. Reyes\u2019s 70-page preliminary injunction opinion<\/a> opens accordingly:<\/p>\n Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President. Not to believe him that a cabinet secretary has \u201cdeveloped\u201d a federal land project. Not to believe him that the secretary\u2019s agency will destroy a historic golf course already on the land. Not to believe him that \u201cRestoration work\u201d will begin \u201cIMMEDIATELY!\u201d Not to believe him that the course \u201cwill be closed\u201d for over a year. Not to believe what the President has repeatedly told the American public.<\/p>\n And yet, here we are.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The precise moment where this case became a professional responsibility matter came during the hearing:<\/p>\n Associate AG: With regard to the November 15th date . . . there is no plan to close the course. Woodward is exactly the sort of lawyer who thinks he can play rhetorical \u201cSimon Says\u201d with a court. When he said, \u201cas those words have their literal meaning,\u201d he\u2019s likely hoping to later defend himself with \u201coh, there wasn\u2019t a file folder with the red-stamped word, \u2018PLAN\u2019 on it\u2026 so technically I was telling the truth,\u201d and Judge Reyes preferred not to wait until then to point out that this is still unethical bullshit.<\/p>\n As it happened, days later, DOJ conceded that the course will close on November 15, \u201cconsistent with the President\u2019s directive,\u201d and also admitted that officials had spent weeks preparing a submission to the National Capital Planning Commission without telling the court. So even the literal meaning of \u201cthe course will close on November 15\u201d turned out to be\u2026 the course will close on November 15.<\/p>\n The McDade Amendment subjects government lawyers to the ethical rules of the courts where they appear, despite the Trump administration pretending it doesn\u2019t<\/a>. Under D.C. Rule 3.3(a)(1)<\/a>, a lawyer is barred from knowingly making \u201ca false statement of fact or law to a tribunal\u201d or failing \u201cto correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.\u201d<\/p>\n Woodward\u2019s coy \u201cliteral meaning\u201d line seemed to be reaching for is Bronston v. United States<\/em>, a 1973 case holding that a literally true but misleading answer isn\u2019t perjury. But ethical obligations and perjury are not the same. The commentary surrounding the rules of candor underscore the special requirement for lawyers, noting that a statement \u201cin open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry,\u201d and that \u201c[t]here may be circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.\u201d<\/p>\n Woodward asserted, in open court, that there was no plan. A reasonably diligent inquiry would have noticed that the administration had announced the architect, the closure date, and a 15-month reopening timeline on Truth Social the day before.<\/p>\n The bad faith appeared to run throughout the record:<\/p>\n Bowron signed her October 6 declaration at 5:15 p.m. Twenty-four minutes later, she emailed her edits to the TMP to park and regional staff. See Oct. 19 Rough Tr. II at 17:24 \u2014 18:1. Given that timeline, the omission of the TMP is not just conspicuous \u2014 it is misleading.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The TMP is the Tree Management Plan and Acting Park Service Director Jessica Bowron signed a sworn statement about the agency\u2019s plans for the course leaving out\u2026 the plan for the course. But more importantly, she then went back to editing that plan before her coffee got cold. Asked why, she testified that she relied on government counsel\u2019s advice \u2014 a totally believable claim based on this DOJ.<\/p>\n Reyes focused squarely on the lawyers: \u201cCounsel must have known that the TMP was a material development that should have been included in any declaration attesting to NPS\u2019s plans on the course.\u201d The witness gets a pass precisely because the lawyers don\u2019t. A footnote calls this \u201ca key reason the Court is concerned about Government counsel\u2019s actions,\u201d citing Universal Health Services<\/em> on half-truths as \u201cactionable misrepresentations.\u201d<\/p>\n Beyond 3.3, the menu of potential ethical entrees includes Rule 8.4(c)\u2019s ban on misrepresentation, Rule 5.1\u2019s duties for supervising lawyers, and \u2014 of course \u2014 FRCP 11 for the filings, and the court\u2019s inherent power to sanction bad faith. The opinion already found a \u201cstrong showing of bad faith\u201d when it ordered extra-record discovery. <\/p>\n The DOJ\u2019s first response landed this morning<\/a>, signed by Woodward, naming \u2014 under seal \u2014 the people who worked on the undisclosed NCPC submission. It opens:<\/p>\n After a diligent inquiry, the Government has identified the following individuals who drafted, edited, or provided input \u2013 or how the Government has defined \u201cparticipated in preparing\u201d \u2013 on the draft of the NCPC submission that was provided to the National Capital Planning Commission:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n NOW they perform a diligent inquiry! The filing says the DOJ is \u201caware of others\u201d at Interior who reviewed the draft, but won\u2019t name them unless the judge \u201cexplicitly order[s] the same.\u201d Given the judge has made clear that she\u2019s blaming the lawyers advising other officials in this misconduct, the DOJ might think the court doesn\u2019t care about Interior. But, after all the dubious claims so far in this case, Judge Reyes probably wants to know who else at Interior is willing to name a government lawyer they talked to.<\/p>\n As an aside, the Reyes opinion is remarkably well-written. BriefCatch<\/a> creator Ross Guberman, as close to a celebrity of legal-writing pedagogy gets, ran it through his software and it scored top marks across the board:<\/p>\n Amazing BriefCatch scores for a recent 70-page opinion from D.C. District Court Judge Ana Reyes!https:\/\/t.co\/Ra1WXzqKaA<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/hB4Afuvn39<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Ross Guberman & BriefCatch (@legalwritingpro) October 29, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n So, obviously, the Federalist Society heads showed up in the comments to question Guberman\u2019s software. But, especially for such a long opinion, it\u2019s approachable, clear, and direct.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s Reyes explaining why Interior Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer wasn\u2019t credible:<\/p>\n Yet Wischer maintains that he \u2014 as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Interior \u2014 just spontaneously became interested in tree and vegetation management. In mid-September. At the East Potomac Golf Course. Because of one recommendation in a seven-year-old CLR. That contained dozens of recommendations as to three golf courses. And that he had not previously heard about.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That may not appeal to the stuffier writers out there (or at least those pretending to be stuffy to defend their tribe), but stringing together fragments like that is an established technique dating at least as far back as Superintendent Chalmers asking why Skinner\u2019s kitchen is on fire<\/a>. <\/p>\n But, you know, the English language is probably woke.<\/p>\n Despite everything so far, the DOJ will presumably recommit itself to faithfully respecting the rule of law and abiding by the court\u2019s orders.<\/p>\n As those words have their literal meaning.<\/p>\n Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Lawyers Will Show Up For The Golf Course Case But Signing The Brief Is Another Matter Entirely<\/a> \n The post \u2018Are You Kidding Me Right Now?\u2019 Federal Judge Asks Trump DOJ Official<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Federal judges traditionally don\u2019t have to ask the DOJ\u2019s number 3 if they\u2019re kidding. But Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is nothing if not a trailblazer.<\/p>\n And the trail he\u2019s blazing involves clear cutting a whole forest of ethical norms and presumptions of DOJ integrity. <\/p>\n Last Friday, in the ongoing court battle over the administration\u2019s capricious destruction of the East Potomac Golf Course<\/a>, Woodward told Judge Ana Reyes that he didn\u2019t \u201crecall the court asking a question as to whether we were wanting to come up with a plan,\u201d per the Independent<\/em><\/a>. Given that the only reason Judge Reyes called Woodward to court in the first place was to get to the bottom of the administration\u2019s plan \u2014 and why it seems to be at odds with what government lawyers told the court \u2014 the judge asked whether he was kidding. As Bloomberg Law News<\/em><\/a> reported, the judge added: \u201cSeriously, Mr. Woodward, come on.\u201d<\/p>\n He did not, ultimately, get serious. By the end of Friday\u2019s hearing in DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior<\/em>, Reyes had opened a formal inquiry<\/a> into whether Justice Department and Interior officials and lawyers made material misrepresentations to the court. She proposed assigning the matter to a special master\u2026 unless DOJ would rather Reyes do it herself.<\/p>\n Perhaps she just wanted to check if the DOJ is as obtuse as it pretended to be.<\/p>\n This case fits squarely into Trump\u2019s preference for mounting tacky D.C. renovation projects over the business of governing, an obsession that manifested yesterday, using his a midterm election closing argument to rant about the reflecting pool<\/a> that he ruined<\/a>. Trump wants to take the East Potomac Golf Course \u2014 a 1920s Walter Travis public course where nine holes cost $17 \u2014 and turn it into a \u201cWorld Class Championship Golf Course.\u201d Which, presumably, he\u2019ll name after himself until he can convert Arlington Cemetery into a companion course.<\/p>\n On October 10, the Park Service bulldozed hundreds of trees without meaningful notice. A furious Judge Reyes unloaded on the DOJ, noting that \u201cI was hearing from everybody on plaintiffs\u2019 side that this was going to happen and I said repeatedly, no, I trust the government.\u201d For their part, government lawyers keep telling the judge that they were doing their best, which she corrected to \u201cyou did your absolute worst<\/a>.\u201d She then issued a TRO. The DOJ then moved to disqualify her<\/a> while Trump took to social media to call her insane<\/a>. <\/p>\n Now Trump has posted that the course will close for renovations \u201cIMMEDIATELY!\u201d<\/p>\n DOJ, stuck with a president won\u2019t stop confessing, told the court to just not believe him. Reyes\u2019s 70-page preliminary injunction opinion<\/a> opens accordingly:<\/p>\n Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President. Not to believe him that a cabinet secretary has \u201cdeveloped\u201d a federal land project. Not to believe him that the secretary\u2019s agency will destroy a historic golf course already on the land. Not to believe him that \u201cRestoration work\u201d will begin \u201cIMMEDIATELY!\u201d Not to believe him that the course \u201cwill be closed\u201d for over a year. Not to believe what the President has repeatedly told the American public.<\/p>\n And yet, here we are.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The precise moment where this case became a professional responsibility matter came during the hearing:<\/p>\n Associate AG: With regard to the November 15th date . . . there is no plan to close the course. Woodward is exactly the sort of lawyer who thinks he can play rhetorical \u201cSimon Says\u201d with a court. When he said, \u201cas those words have their literal meaning,\u201d he\u2019s likely hoping to later defend himself with \u201coh, there wasn\u2019t a file folder with the red-stamped word, \u2018PLAN\u2019 on it\u2026 so technically I was telling the truth,\u201d and Judge Reyes preferred not to wait until then to point out that this is still unethical bullshit.<\/p>\n As it happened, days later, DOJ conceded that the course will close on November 15, \u201cconsistent with the President\u2019s directive,\u201d and also admitted that officials had spent weeks preparing a submission to the National Capital Planning Commission without telling the court. So even the literal meaning of \u201cthe course will close on November 15\u201d turned out to be\u2026 the course will close on November 15.<\/p>\n The McDade Amendment subjects government lawyers to the ethical rules of the courts where they appear, despite the Trump administration pretending it doesn\u2019t<\/a>. Under D.C. Rule 3.3(a)(1)<\/a>, a lawyer is barred from knowingly making \u201ca false statement of fact or law to a tribunal\u201d or failing \u201cto correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.\u201d<\/p>\n Woodward\u2019s coy \u201cliteral meaning\u201d line seemed to be reaching for is Bronston v. United States<\/em>, a 1973 case holding that a literally true but misleading answer isn\u2019t perjury. But ethical obligations and perjury are not the same. The commentary surrounding the rules of candor underscore the special requirement for lawyers, noting that a statement \u201cin open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry,\u201d and that \u201c[t]here may be circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.\u201d<\/p>\n Woodward asserted, in open court, that there was no plan. A reasonably diligent inquiry would have noticed that the administration had announced the architect, the closure date, and a 15-month reopening timeline on Truth Social the day before.<\/p>\n The bad faith appeared to run throughout the record:<\/p>\n Bowron signed her October 6 declaration at 5:15 p.m. Twenty-four minutes later, she emailed her edits to the TMP to park and regional staff. See Oct. 19 Rough Tr. II at 17:24 \u2014 18:1. Given that timeline, the omission of the TMP is not just conspicuous \u2014 it is misleading.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The TMP is the Tree Management Plan and Acting Park Service Director Jessica Bowron signed a sworn statement about the agency\u2019s plans for the course leaving out\u2026 the plan for the course. But more importantly, she then went back to editing that plan before her coffee got cold. Asked why, she testified that she relied on government counsel\u2019s advice \u2014 a totally believable claim based on this DOJ.<\/p>\n Reyes focused squarely on the lawyers: \u201cCounsel must have known that the TMP was a material development that should have been included in any declaration attesting to NPS\u2019s plans on the course.\u201d The witness gets a pass precisely because the lawyers don\u2019t. A footnote calls this \u201ca key reason the Court is concerned about Government counsel\u2019s actions,\u201d citing Universal Health Services<\/em> on half-truths as \u201cactionable misrepresentations.\u201d<\/p>\n Beyond 3.3, the menu of potential ethical entrees includes Rule 8.4(c)\u2019s ban on misrepresentation, Rule 5.1\u2019s duties for supervising lawyers, and \u2014 of course \u2014 FRCP 11 for the filings, and the court\u2019s inherent power to sanction bad faith. The opinion already found a \u201cstrong showing of bad faith\u201d when it ordered extra-record discovery. <\/p>\n The DOJ\u2019s first response landed this morning<\/a>, signed by Woodward, naming \u2014 under seal \u2014 the people who worked on the undisclosed NCPC submission. It opens:<\/p>\n After a diligent inquiry, the Government has identified the following individuals who drafted, edited, or provided input \u2013 or how the Government has defined \u201cparticipated in preparing\u201d \u2013 on the draft of the NCPC submission that was provided to the National Capital Planning Commission:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n NOW they perform a diligent inquiry! The filing says the DOJ is \u201caware of others\u201d at Interior who reviewed the draft, but won\u2019t name them unless the judge \u201cexplicitly order[s] the same.\u201d Given the judge has made clear that she\u2019s blaming the lawyers advising other officials in this misconduct, the DOJ might think the court doesn\u2019t care about Interior. But, after all the dubious claims so far in this case, Judge Reyes probably wants to know who else at Interior is willing to name a government lawyer they talked to.<\/p>\n As an aside, the Reyes opinion is remarkably well-written. BriefCatch<\/a> creator Ross Guberman, as close to a celebrity of legal-writing pedagogy gets, ran it through his software and it scored top marks across the board:<\/p>\n Amazing BriefCatch scores for a recent 70-page opinion from D.C. District Court Judge Ana Reyes!https:\/\/t.co\/Ra1WXzqKaA<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/hB4Afuvn39<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Ross Guberman & BriefCatch (@legalwritingpro) October 29, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n So, obviously, the Federalist Society heads showed up in the comments to question Guberman\u2019s software. But, especially for such a long opinion, it\u2019s approachable, clear, and direct.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s Reyes explaining why Interior Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer wasn\u2019t credible:<\/p>\n Yet Wischer maintains that he \u2014 as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Interior \u2014 just spontaneously became interested in tree and vegetation management. In mid-September. At the East Potomac Golf Course. Because of one recommendation in a seven-year-old CLR. That contained dozens of recommendations as to three golf courses. And that he had not previously heard about.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That may not appeal to the stuffier writers out there (or at least those pretending to be stuffy to defend their tribe), but stringing together fragments like that is an established technique dating at least as far back as Superintendent Chalmers asking why Skinner\u2019s kitchen is on fire<\/a>. <\/p>\n But, you know, the English language is probably woke.<\/p>\n Despite everything so far, the DOJ will presumably recommit itself to faithfully respecting the rule of law and abiding by the court\u2019s orders.<\/p>\n As those words have their literal meaning.<\/p>\n Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Lawyers Will Show Up For The Golf Course Case But Signing The Brief Is Another Matter Entirely<\/a> \n The post \u2018Are You Kidding Me Right Now?\u2019 Federal Judge Asks Trump DOJ Official<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Federal judges traditionally don\u2019t have to ask the DOJ\u2019s number 3 if they\u2019re kidding. But Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is nothing if not a trailblazer. And the trail he\u2019s blazing involves clear cutting a whole forest of ethical norms and presumptions of DOJ integrity. Last Friday, in the ongoing court battle over the administration\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166702","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=166702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
THE COURT: Okay.
Associate AG: As those words have their literal meaning.
THE COURT: How about if we use the nonliteral meaning of the words.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
DOJ Demands Judge Recuse Herself For Inappropriate Noticing They Broke The Law<\/a>
Golf Course Plaintiffs Give Judge Reyes A Heads-Up: The President Called You Insane Before Breakfast<\/a>
\u2018You Did Your Absolute Worst\u2019: Judge Delivers Epic Benchslap Over Trump Golf Course Chainsaw Spree<\/a><\/p>\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
THE COURT: Okay.
Associate AG: As those words have their literal meaning.
THE COURT: How about if we use the nonliteral meaning of the words.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
DOJ Demands Judge Recuse Herself For Inappropriate Noticing They Broke The Law<\/a>
Golf Course Plaintiffs Give Judge Reyes A Heads-Up: The President Called You Insane Before Breakfast<\/a>
\u2018You Did Your Absolute Worst\u2019: Judge Delivers Epic Benchslap Over Trump Golf Course Chainsaw Spree<\/a><\/p>\n
\nJoe 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n