Cue
the
world’s
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’t
so
much
“successfully
argued
in
court”
lately.
And
it
seems
all
the
losing
has
taken
a
toll
because
the
Department
just
lodged
its
Petition
To
Stop
Hurting
Our
Feelings
with
the
D.C.
Circuit
after
Judge
Ana
Reyes
took
a
DOJ
lawyer
to
the
woodshed
for
the
government’s
slipshod
defense
of
its
effort
to
ban
transgender
service
members.
“The
transcript
reveals
multiple
instances
where
Judge
Reyes’
misconduct
compromised
the
dignity
of
the
proceedings
and
demonstrated
potential
bias,
raising
serious
concerns
about
her
ability
to
preside
impartially
in
this
matter,”
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.
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’s
evasiveness.
Generally
speaking,
judges
shouldn’t
lord
their
position
over
counsel.
That
said,
judges
aren’t
obligated
to
sit
idly
by
while
unprepared
lawyers
waste
their
time.
Mizelle
requests
to
speak
with
the
manager
—
in
this
case,
Chief
Judge
Sri
Srinivasan
—
arguing
that
Judge
Reyes
fell
on
the
wrong
side
of
this
line:
After
a
long
screed
about
how
she
believes
President
Trump
has
discriminated
against
individuals
with
gender
dysphoria
(including
a
claim
that
he
was
“literally
erasing
transgender
people”),
Judge
Reyes
describes
receiving
an
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:
“What
do
you
think
Jesus
would
say
to
telling
a
group
of
people
that
they
are
so
worthless,
so
worthless
that
we’re
not
going
to
allow
them
into
homeless
shelters?
Do
you
think
Jesus
would
be,
‘Sounds
right
to
me’?
Or
do
you
think
Jesus
would
say,
‘WTF?
Of
course,
let
them
in.?”
This
line
of
questioning
is
deeply
problematic
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
question
has
no
relevance
to
the
legal
analysis
of
military
policy.
Asking
the
government
about
Jesus
would
be
inappropriate
except
TRUMP
EXPLICITLY
SAID
the
purpose
of
his
policies
toward
transgender
folks
is
to
protect
Christians
against
affirming
“radical
transgender
ideology
against
their
faith.”
Trump
avoided
that
language
in
this
executive
order,
but
it’s
all
over
the
rest
of
his
work
on
this
subject.
Given
that
the
DOJ
styles
itself
as
Trump’s
personal
lawyers,
it
seems
quite
relevant
to
probe
how
this
policy
relates
to
the
government’s
take
on
Jesus.
If
Jesus
might
not
object,
how
can
this
amount
to
blanket
anti-Christian
bias?
That’s
not
a
wild
line
of
inquiry
for
the
judge.
Second,
it
placed
DOJ
counsel
in
an
untenable
position
of
either
appearing
unresponsive
or
speculating
about
how
an
incoherent
hypothetical
aligns
with
Judge
Reyes’
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:
“The
United
States
is
not
going
to
speculate
about
what
Jesus
would
have
to
say
about
anything.”
Yeah,
Trump
did
that
already.
To
borrow
from
a
different
exchange
between
Judge
Reyes
and
Lynch
at
the
same
hearing:
“It’s
not
like
I
randomly
picked
you
off
the
street.
You’re
the
government’s
representative
here.”
Third,
sporadic
use
of
the
inappropriate
abbreviation
“WTF”
during
the
questioning
of
an
attorney
on
his
religious
beliefs
sheds
light
on
the
severity
of
the
judge’s
lack
of
professional
decorum.
LOL.
The
DOJ’s
Victorian
fainting
couch
suffered
a
WORKOUT
last
week.
Unfortunately,
Judge
Reyes’
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:
“I
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.”
When
counsel
complied
with
this
directive,
the
judge
continued
her
hypothetical
about
UVA
law
graduates
being
banned
from
her
courtroom
because
“they’re
all
liars
and
lack
integrity.”
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’s
unnecessary
demonstration.
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
—
based
solely
in
attacking
the
integrity
of
transgender
service
members
—
isn’t
a
showing
of
animus.
LYNCH:
Not
in
any
constitutional
—
JUDGE
REYES:
In
a
commonsense
way.
This
is
a
policy
from
the
President
of
the
United
States
affecting
thousands
of
people
…
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’t
have
an
answer
for
you.
JUDGE
REYES:
You
do
have
an
answer,
you
just
don’t
want
to
give
it…
People
can
make
solid
arguments
as
to
why
some
or
even
most
transgender
people
shouldn’t
be
in
the
military
…
We’re
dealing
with
unadulterated
animus.
We
are
dealing
with
the
president
of
the
United
States
dealing
with
a
group
of
people
serving
their
country
…
calling
them
liars.
Judge
Reyes
conducted
the
UVA
demonstration
because
Lynch
claimed
—
even
if
the
judge
suspected
disingenuously
—
to
not
be
able
to
comprehend
what
“animus”
means.
The
demonstration
shouldn’t
have
been
necessary,
but
since
the
DOJ
decided
to
pretend
they
were
born
yesterday,
the
judge
indulged.
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.
For
lawyers
committed
to
champion
a
particularly
toxic
brand
of
cis-hetero
patriarchy…
how
do
they
justify
being
such
crybabies?
(Letter
on
the
next
page…)
Justice
Department
files
complaint
against
judge
weighing
challenge
to
Trump’s
transgender
troop
ban
[AP]
Earlier:
Judge
Obliterates
DOJ
Lawyer
At
Transgender
Ban
Hearing
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.