Judge Ana Reyes abruptly withdrew a demand that DOJ attorneys identify themselves on a filing after a nearly seven-hour showdown with the Trump Justice Department.
Fox News reported that the Biden-appointed judge ended Monday’s marathon hearing by abandoning the very order that had defined it: a push for Justice Department lawyers to put their names next to Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr.’s Sunday brief.
Reyes had invoked Rule 11, the federal rule that requires attorneys to stand behind the factual basis of court filings and opens the door to sanctions, and pressed DOJ counsel to refile the brief with clear identification of who signed it. The lawyers refused. Woodward called the demand to raise hands “not an appropriate request.” By the close of the nearly seven-hour session, the judge reversed course.
“Late breaking news,” Reyes said. “I'm going to withdraw request that DOJ refile yesterday's brief with identification of who signed it. we've all got better things to spend our time on.”
"Late breaking news," Reyes said. "I'm going to withdraw request that DOJ refile yesterday's brief with identification of who signed it. we've all got better things to spend our time on."
The retreat came in a case already loaded with tension: a fight over tree removals at East Potomac Golf Links, a federally owned course in Washington, D.C., and over President Donald Trump’s plan to turn it into a world-class championship layout.
The National Park Service removed roughly 430 trees at the course over a weekend earlier this month. Reyes then imposed a temporary restraining order barring further removals. The Interior Department said the work was part of a years-old plan to restore the course’s historic design and was unrelated to Trump’s proposed overhaul. Officials also said the tree removal did not violate a court order.
Trump has described a different destination for the property. In Sunday posts he said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and architect Tom Fazio had “developed a plan” to revamp East Potomac Golf Links into a “World Class Championship Golf Course,” with work set to begin November 15. Hours before Monday’s hearing he went further on Truth Social.
"The judge on the case is a crazed lunatic whose courthouse tapes will reveal, may be insane? The tapes have been blocked from usage by the judge," Trump posted, adding that the administration has a "right" to turn the course into a "great, safe, and prestigious" golf course. "Work is scheduled to begin IMMEDIATELY! The finished product will be World Class, and bring income and great prestige back to D.C."
The president has called for release of the court’s audio recordings. Woodward has made the same request. The dispute over whether those tapes stay blocked remains part of the larger fight.
Woodward’s Sunday filing carried only his signature. Reyes treated that as a problem. She ordered attorneys to the podium, pressed for names, and set deadlines, first an 8 p.m. filing mark after Trump’s posts, then a 3 p.m. target later extended until noon Tuesday, before dropping the demand entirely.
That sequence landed in a climate where line attorneys already think twice about putting their names on contested briefs. Former federal prosecutor Abhishek Kambli explained the practice on X in plain terms.
"For those wondering, a common reason high level DOJ appointees sometimes signs briefs boils down to good leadership. If there is something that is likely to be contentious with a judge, a DOJ leader signs their name on the brief so that any issues someone has with the brief is directed at them rather than lower level attorneys. Regardless, it goes without saying that a decision such as this should not be something a judge is inquiring into."
Rachel Boulvard, vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, pointed to another pressure: Democratic lawfare aimed at the bar licenses of younger DOJ lawyers who simply execute department policy. In that environment, a judge demanding personal identification on a high-profile brief is not a small ask. It is a career risk handed down from the bench.
Monday was not the first collision. At an Oct. 12 hearing, Reyes was described as “screaming” at administration attorneys. Woodward responded by seeking her removal from the case, citing bias and “open hostility.” A prior judicial-misconduct complaint from then-DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle accused Reyes of “hostile and egregious misconduct” and potential bias. The D.C. Circuit’s chief judge dismissed that complaint and said a recusal motion was the proper avenue.
The lawsuit itself dates to February. In a February 2025 hearing in a related posture, Reyes questioned a Trump administration attorney about what Jesus Christ would say regarding policies excluding transgender people from homeless shelters, a line of inquiry that underscored how far the courtroom had drifted from ordinary case management. Reyes was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023.
DOJ’s earlier filing had stated there was “no agency action” in Trump’s golf-course plan. Reyes treated Trump’s public statements and that filing as being in conflict. The administration’s position remained that it has the authority to improve a federal course, produce revenue, and restore prestige to a D.C. amenity that sits in plain view of the capital.
The temporary restraining order on further tree cutting still stands on the record described in the reporting. Woodward’s bid to remove Reyes from the case has not been resolved in the material available. The November 15 start date Trump announced for the Burgum-Fazio plan now sits against a live injunction fight and a judge who spent most of a day pressing sanctions tools before deciding everyone had better uses for their time.
East Potomac Golf Links is federal land. The National Park Service and Interior control the ground. A president who wants a U.S. Open-caliber course there is using the same levers every administration uses on federal property, planning, contracting, and executive direction. A district judge can police real violations of court orders. Inventing a signature ritual under Rule 11, then abandoning it after seven hours, is something else.
Taxpayers own the course. They also own the courthouse time burned on a demand the court itself finally dropped. When a judge starts a sanctions fight over who signed a brief, then walks it back because there are “better things to spend our time on,” the public is entitled to ask why the fight started at all.
