The Trump administration has moved to disqualify a Biden-appointed federal judge from a D.C. golf course case, accusing her of open hostility and disdain for the government.
Late Friday, Justice Department lawyers filed a 13-page motion seeking to remove U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes from litigation over construction and tree-clearing at East Potomac Golf Links in Washington, D.C., and to transfer the dispute to another district judge.
Law & Crime reported that the court ordered the plaintiffs, golfers and an environmental advocacy group, to respond by Sunday afternoon. The motion argues no reasonable observer could still see Reyes as impartial.
The underlying lawsuit, filed in February, challenges work at the public course in East Potomac Park. Plaintiffs claim President Donald Trump intends to replace the existing layout with a championship-style course suited for professional tournaments. The Department of the Interior is among the defendants.
Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, has overseen the case from the start. The administration says her conduct crossed the line from firm case management into open hostility toward the executive branch.
The government’s filing does not hold back about why Reyes should step aside.
Defendants wrote that her record in this case and in other high-profile Trump Administration litigation leaves no room for confidence in a fair forum:
“In light of Judge Reyes’s actions here and in other high-profile litigation involving the Trump Administration, no reasonable observer could consider Judge Reyes sufficiently impartial to adjudicate this case,”
The motion also states that Reyes “has hamstrung the Government’s legitimate attempts to maintain East Potomac Park from the outset.” It further charges that she “has unfairly questioned Trump Administration attorneys’ intelligence, allowed her disdain for the Trump Administration to influence how hearings unfold, and systematically disregarded basic separation of powers principles and Article III constraints on judicial authority.”
On the tone of prior proceedings, the filing is blunt:
“Judge Reyes’s histrionics in prior hearings have clearly demonstrated she is no longer impartial,”
It continues:
“She has screamed at full voice, suggested that the government was acting contrary to the will of Jesus, and accused counsel for the government of having done her ‘absolute worst,’ in addition to the statements described above,”
The administration’s bottom line is straightforward. “The Trump Administration is entitled to a neutral forum and an adjudicator who is capable of maintaining the appearance of impartiality.”
Lawyers also asked the court to release hearing audio so the public can “fully appreciate Judge Reyes’s animosity.”
The fight sharpened after the Department of the Interior removed some 529 trees at the park in early October.
Earlier in the case, Reyes had resisted broad preliminary relief. She said she did “not want to be the overseer of Parks and Rec.” By the government’s account, though, a May framework effectively gave plaintiffs veto power over significant maintenance even before any formal order barred the government this week. Notice was required for construction equipment larger than a sedan.
When the trees came down without that notice, the courtroom temperature rose. In a hearing, Reyes pressed Justice Department counsel hard. She asked why they did not seek details. A DOJ lawyer answered that they had asked and “did our best.” Reyes replied, “No, I’m sorry. Ignorance is not an excuse here.”
She also said she has “given the government every single benefit of the doubt.” A later written order framed the clearing in stark terms:
“Breakneck speed to clear trees that posed no harm,” “The reason? Disputed. The budget? Unclear. The environmental impact? Unstudied. The urgency? None. Next steps: bulldoze hundreds more.”
The motion says she accused government counsel of doing “your absolute worst.” Earlier this week, DOJ filings had already criticized her decisions, legal theories, and handling of the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request.
The disqualification request does not rest only on East Potomac. It points to what it calls a pattern of animus dating to February 2025 in litigation over the rights of transgender service members. It also likens some of the judge’s statements to remarks by an anti-German judge in a World War I espionage case, a historical comparison meant to underscore how far the bench, in the government’s view, has drifted from neutral arbitration.
In the transfer request itself, defendants spelled out the conduct they say disqualifies her:
“Defendants respectfully submit that this matter should be transferred to another district court judge, one who has not demonstrated open hostility towards Defendants by prejudging the outcome of motions that are yet to be filed, summoning witnesses with no notice on federal holidays, calling witnesses to appear to testify at hearings on motions that have yet to be filed, and for violating the basic norms that a judge be a fair, neutral, and impartial arbiter applying the law to facts before the Court.”
That is the standard the administration says Article III requires. A judge may police the record. A judge may not, in the government’s telling, predecide unfiled motions, stage surprise witness demands on federal holidays, or turn hearings into vehicles for disdain toward the elected executive.
East Potomac Golf Links is a public course on federal parkland. Routine maintenance and larger capital work both run through Interior. Plaintiffs cast the administration’s plans as a scheme to wipe out the existing course. The government casts its work as legitimate park upkeep that a district judge has repeatedly slowed, second-guessed, and colored with open skepticism of presidential motives.
The May notice regime sits at the center of that clash. Formally, Reyes had not entered an order against the government until this week. Practically, the motion says, plaintiffs gained leverage over “any significant maintenance at the Park.” When Interior then moved on the trees at speed, the bench answered with credibility attacks and a written rebuke that treated disputed policy judgments as proof of bad faith.
Separation of powers is not a slogan in this filing. The administration argues Reyes has pushed past the limits on judicial authority, supervising park operations, doubting counsel’s competence, and letting hostility toward the Trump Administration shape how hearings run.
Plaintiffs now have until Sunday afternoon to answer. The motion’s demand is simple: reassign the case to a judge who has not already shown “open hostility” toward the defendants.
Federal courts only work when both sides believe the referee will apply the law to the facts. When a Biden-appointed judge’s own words and courtroom conduct convince the Justice Department that impartiality is gone, the remedy is transfer, not another lecture from the same bench.
