DOJ Moves to Disqualify Judge in Trumps DC Golf

Well, that escalated rapidly…

What started as a dispute over the Trump administration’s removing of a whole lot of trees from Washington, D.C.’s East Potomac Golf Course has now grow to be a reasonably pointed confrontation between the chief and judicial branches.

And the Department of Justice (DOJ) just raised the stakes significantly.

As RedState reported Monday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes was decidedly sad with the National Park Service after it eliminated roughly 430 trees over the weekend, having notified the court late Friday afternoon. Reyes summoned senior administration officers to clarify the operation, sharply criticized authorities attorneys, and quickly halted additional tree removing.

On Tuesday, she prolonged that prohibition through October 26, discovering that the plaintiffs have been probably to succeed on their declare that the federal government failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

But the administration is not taking this mendacity down. On Friday, the DOJ filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction, arguing that Reyes exceeded her authority by compelling testimony from senior govt officers and relying on evidence developed through what the federal government contends was an improper judicial inquiry.

Then got here the real fireworks.

In a separate movement signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the DOJ formally requested Reyes’s disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), arguing that her conduct has created an look of partiality. The movement cites Reyes’ treatment of authorities counsel, her calls for for testimony from senior officers, and remarks made in other Trump administration litigation.

The DOJ also desires the audio from Monday’s listening to launched publicly, arguing that transcripts alone can’t adequately convey the decide’s demeanor.

And this goes properly past judicial temperament. Section 455(a) requires recusal when a decide’s impartiality may moderately be questioned. But under the Supreme Court’s resolution in Liteky v. United States, harsh criticism and hostile rulings ordinarily aren’t enough. The query is whether or not the decide has demonstrated such deep-seated antagonism that truthful judgment turns into unattainable.

Separately, established precedent typically protects high-ranking govt officers from compelled testimony absent extraordinary circumstances — another issue DOJ has squarely raised.

So where does this depart issues?

Ordinarily, Reyes would determine the recusal movement herself — at least initially. She may grant it and switch the case to another decide, although that would not robotically invalidate her earlier orders. But she may also deny it, leaving the administration to think about appellate remedies, doubtlessly including mandamus. The DOJ may also search appellate intervention concerning compelled testimony or the prevailing injunction.

Meanwhile, an evidentiary listening to is scheduled for Monday, October 19, with senior Interior officers ordered to seem.

None of this establishes that Reyes’ disqualification is inevitable. But it does imply the litigation has moved properly past the query of whether or not NPS performed satisfactory environmental review before eradicating trees.

The more and more consequential query is whether or not the court itself has remained within the correct bounds of its authority.

And to assume, on Monday, we have been just speaking about some trees on a golf course… 

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.