The Justice Department is wrong to seek Judge Ana Reyes's removal
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
The Trump administration seeks to remove Judge Ana Reyes over her rebuke of tree clearing at East Potomac Golf Course, but trading judicial independence for administrative convenience is an error that must fail.
The cost of a colorful bench
The Justice Department is wrong to seek the removal of U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes. In a motion, the administration accused Judge Reyes of "egregious" behavior and "deep-seated and unequivocal antipathy" toward the executive branch. The friction stems from a dispute over the East Potomac Golf Course. President Donald Trump intends to transform the site into a "championship caliber course." According to CNN, federal officials plan to clear nearly 730 trees for the project.
The conflict peaked during a hearing. Judge Reyes told the court she was "furious" that the administration cut down 169 trees without notifying her. NBC4 Washington reports that more than 400 trees were actually cut by Department of the Interior contractors. Judge Reyes noted that the government provided notice of the work only on a Friday. She responded by ordering all equipment removed by the following Friday. She warned that a violation of this order would trigger contempt proceedings.
Judge Reyes is not a model of judicial restraint. Stating that "the government can’t be trusted" is a failure of temperament. A judge should be a referee, not a scold. When she blocked the administration's ban on transgender service members, she claimed the government was "literally erasing transgender people." This is the language of a polemicist, not a jurist. But a judge's lack of poise is not a legal basis for removal.
The danger of the recusal tool
Recusal is the process by which a judge steps aside to avoid a conflict of interest or a lack of impartiality. The Justice Department argues that Judge Reyes cannot maintain the "appearance of impartiality." They cite her "cavalier disregard" for the time of high-level officials. This argument is a shortcut. It asks the court to confuse a judge's anger at government conduct with a bias against the government itself.
We must test this tool against the day the other side holds it. If the executive branch can remove any judge who expresses frustration with administrative law-breaking, the court becomes a subsidiary of the White House.
The record shows that the Justice Department has tried this before. The department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Reyes. D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan dismissed that complaint in September 2025. He found that robust criticism of executive policy does not equal misconduct.
A pattern of executive pressure
The current motion is a modern iteration of The Saturday Night Massacre. In 1973, President Richard Nixon attempted to remove special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Cox refused to drop a subpoena for White House tapes. Both events share the same mechanism: the executive branch attempts to remove a legal officer who refuses to yield to presidential interests.
The administration's case rests on the idea that Judge Reyes is a partisan. Yet the dossier reveals a more complex record. Judge Reyes sentenced Charles E. Littlejohn to five years in prison for leaking tax returns. This sentence was far above federal guidelines. She called the leak an attack on constitutional democracy. She also refused to reinstate the 17 inspectors general she had ruled were unlawfully fired, reasoning that the president could simply re-fire them.
The Justice Department is not seeking a neutral forum. It is seeking a compliant one. The Washington Post notes that the request follows a "sharp rebuke" over the clearing of public land. To punish a judge for that rebuke is to suggest that the government's "routine maintenance" of a golf course outweighs the court's authority to oversee it.
The D.C. Circuit should deny the motion. Judge Reyes may be overly fond of the adjective, but her holdings on the record are what matter. If the administration wants a judge who is not "furious" when the government ignores a court order, it is asking for a judge who does not care about the law. The motion is an attempt to trade judicial independence for administrative convenience. It must fail.