Judge Ana Reyes / Wikimedia Commons U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, has flatly refused to step aside from the ongoing...
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, has flatly refused to step aside from the ongoing lawsuit seeking to block President Trump’s renovation of Washington, D.C.’s East Potomac Golf Course.
In a 13-page memorandum opinion issued October 18, Reyes denied the Department of Justice’s motion to disqualify her for bias, arguing that government lawyers “omitted context” behind her furious October 12 outburst and ignored her repeated earlier praise of DOJ counsel.
Reyes, a foreign-born Biden judge, erupted at Trump administration attorneys during an emergency hearing after the National Park Service removed more than 400 trees from the course over the Columbus Day holiday weekend.
She declared she was “furious,” that the government’s actions had “cost the government all of its credibility,” and that “ignorance is not an excuse,” before issuing a temporary restraining order halting further tree cutting. She later extended the block through at least October 26.
In her denial of the recusal motion (filed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward), Reyes laid out the government’s claims side-by-side with what she called “the record.” She noted that she had, for months, declined nearly a dozen requests from the D.C.
Preservation League and other plaintiffs to restrain the government, repeatedly credited DOJ lawyers’ representations, and refused to presume bad faith.
Early in the case she had praised a government brief as “one of the more exceptional government briefs I have seen in three years on the bench,” calling the writing “spectacular” and the analysis “spot on.”
Transcript excerpts she quoted include statements such as “you know I have an immense amount of respect for you. I think at every single hearing I have said that I think you’re doing an excellent job,” “I have 1,000 percent faith in you,” and descriptions of counsel as a “terrific advocate.”
What changed, Reyes wrote, was not sudden bias but the government’s own conduct: a decision to remove over 500 healthy, non-invasive trees, with notice delivered at 4:55 p.m. on the Friday of a holiday weekend that work would begin within 15 hours.
Nearly 430 trees were cut in a single day before a rain delay stopped further work.
Plaintiffs then sought a TRO, which the court granted. Reyes acknowledged she was “furious” and “beyond disappointed” at the October 12 hearing but cited D.C. Circuit precedent that judges in hard-fought, controversial cases may use strong words without automatically requiring disqualification.
She concluded the government had not met the “heavy burden” under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and Supreme Court standards in Liteky to show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism making fair judgment impossible.
Reyes also pushed back on claims she had hamstrung legitimate maintenance from the outset, noting that before October 11 the court had not barred any government action at East Potomac, including tree removal.
She framed her earlier restraint as consistent with separation-of-powers principles, quoting her own prior statements that federal courts should not tell the Executive what to do absent an obvious violation of law.
The government, she said, created the emergency that necessitated the holiday-weekend hearing by insisting tree felling would resume Monday weather permitting.
The opinion denies the motion and keeps the case before Reyes. The underlying dispute centers on the Trump administration’s plans, announced after the president toured the site with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and golf architect Tom Fazio, to transform the aging public course into a championship-level facility open to the public and capable of hosting major events.
Activist plaintiffs have sought to block the work through claims under environmental and historic-preservation statutes.
No comments