Judge Reyes Rejects Recusal, Clashes With DOJs

If you thought the legal battle over President Donald Trump’s plans for Washington, D.C.’s East Potomac Golf Course may settle down over the weekend, suppose again.

As RedState reported Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to disqualify U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes from the litigation after she sharply criticized authorities attorneys during an emergency listening to over the removing of lots of of trees.

Since then, we have had a number of presidential Truth Social posts, a pointed judicial rebuke, and another slightly contentious courtroom confrontation.

And it is only Monday.

First, the recusal movement.

Late Sunday, Reyes issued a 13-page memorandum opinion denying the DOJ’s request that she step apart.

The movement, personally signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, accused Reyes of demonstrating hostility toward the administration through her treatment of authorities attorneys and her calls for for testimony from senior govt officers.

Reyes was not amused:

That is a severe charge. The Court solutions it. With the document.

She pointed to quite a few events when she refused plaintiffs’ requests for reduction and praised authorities counsel, arguing that her anger during last week’s listening to didn’t set up the deep-seated antagonism vital to warrant disqualification.

Under Supreme Court precedent, judicial irritation — even anger — ordinarily is not enough to require recusal.

Then got here Monday morning.

Before the scheduled listening to, Trump posted another message, calling Reyes a “crazed lunatic,” difficult the plaintiffs’ standing, and declaring that work on the golf course would start “IMMEDIATELY!”

Plaintiffs promptly filed the post with the court (naturally).

And when proceedings started, issues acquired attention-grabbing.

According to Politico, Reyes confronted Woodward over a temporary he had signed Sunday night, demanding to know whether or not other DOJ attorneys have been prepared to put their names on it.

Woodward objected, arguing that the demand positioned his colleagues in an untenable place.

The dispute raised questions about Rule 11, which requires attorneys signing court filings to certify that their legal arguments and factual representations have a correct foundation. Of notice: The rule does not require every attorney representing a celebration to signal every submission.

Reyes initially ordered additional briefing on the issue.

But then got here another twist.

According to Lawfare’s Anna Bower, Reyes later withdrew her demand that the DOJ refile the submission with extra signatures, explaining that she’d reconsidered after consulting with her law clerks.

Just now: Judge Reyes withdraws her request for DOJ to re-file yesterday’s submission with any other DOJ attorneys who are prepared to signal it. Reyes says she made choice after considering about it more, consulting with her clerks.

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) October 19, 2026

The reversal seems to resolve that explicit dispute, though the broader disagreement over judicial authority stays.

Meanwhile, the listening to turned to testimony from senior Interior Department officers relating to whether or not the latest tree removing was genuinely unbiased of Trump’s proposed championship-course redevelopment. (If the tree removing was really half of the bigger golf course redevelopment, the federal government might face extra environmental-review necessities before continuing. If the tree removing was a separate historic-restoration project, as the administration maintains, it may very well be evaluated independently under a more restricted environmental review.)

Interior official Greg Wischer maintained the tasks have been separate, despite acknowledging his involvement in discussions in regards to the president’s plans. Acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron reportedly attributed the timing of the tree removing to accessible personnel and funding.

Reyes expressed skepticism that the overlapping timelines have been coincidental.

So where do issues stand now?

The non permanent restraining order halting additional tree removing stays in impact through October 26. Reyes has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs’ request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

The DOJ continues to dispute both the court’s authority to review the project and facets of Reyes’s handling of the proceedings. And the administration’s recusal movement, although denied, will not be the ultimate phrase on the subject.

For now, we’re awaiting the court’s next transfer.

Who knew a golf course might generate this a lot legal tough?

Editor’s Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump’s agenda and ignoring the need of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges decided to halt President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to obtain 60% off your membership.