The Justice Department filed charges of judicial misconduct against Biden-appointed District Judge Ana C. Reyes for overt hostility toward the government in Thursday's hearing on President Trump's Executive Order barring transgender applicants from joining the military. Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff accused Reyes of engaging in "hostile and egregious misconduct" during the hearing.

During the hearing, Reyes ceased to act as an impartial factfinder and engaged in argumentation that made it very clear that she was dismissive of the idea that transgenders who are unable to deploy worldwide because of the absence of specialized medical treatment were a drag, so to speak, on readiness; see SecDef Hegseth Orders an End to Enlisting Transgenders – RedState and Federal Judge Ana Reyes Likely to Block Trump Ban on Trans in the Military – RedState.

The fact that Reyes is openly one of the alphabet people had nothing to do with it. Because that would not lead her to proclaim, without a whit of scientific evidence, that “This executive order is premised on an assertion that’s not biologically correct,” Reyes said. “There are anywhere near 30 intersex examples. Anyone who doesn’t have XX or XY chromosomes is not just male or female, they’re intersex.”

The letter alleges many incidents but focuses on two. In one, she demanded to know the religious views of the DOJ attorney, Jason Lynch. Then, this incredible exchange happened.

"What do you think Jesus would say," Reyes proceeded to ask, about an action that revokes a transgender person's access to homeless shelters? 

"Do you think he’d say ‘sounds right to me’ or ‘WTF, let them in?'"

Lynch extracted himself by saying, "The US government is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."

Not only was the questioning wildly inappropriate, but it also forced the government attorney to reveal his own religion and wonder how that would affect Reyes's view of his answer.

The second specific incident involved her using the government lawyer as a prop in her argument for the other side.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes hammered the government over the sweeping order signed during Trump’s first week back in office, suggesting it amounted to “unadulterated animus” backed up by little evidence. 

“We are dealing with the president of the United States calling a group of people who have served their country, who, you have told me, have made America safer, calling them liars,” Reyes, an appointee of former President Biden, told Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Jason Lynch. 

“This is a policy of the president of the United States that is affecting thousands of people, carte blanche, without any support that has been given by anyone,” Reyes added. “How is that anything other than showing animus?” 

Reyes then directed Lynch to sit down, purporting she would ban all graduates of the University of Virginia School of Law — Lynch’s alma mater — from appearing before her because they’re “liars” and “lack integrity,” terms mimicking Trump’s executive order. 

“Is that animus?” she asked, calling Lynch back to the podium. 

This is the legal equivalent of a "brushback pitch." The letter asked Chief Judge Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan, an Obama appointee, for unspecified corrective action, but after this display of stupidity, it is hard to believe that Reyes will not face a "motion to disqualify." Even if that motion is rejected, it will be appealed. If Reyes stays on the case and inevitably rules that transgenders are allowed in the military, the government will appeal, and Reyes's misconduct and abusive behavior will be a factor.

Ultimately, I think the government prevails on this issue, but only after the Supreme Court gets involved. No one has a right to join the military because if they did, Lizzo could sue to join. No one has a right to a career in the military or to have the US government pay for purely elective surgeries and drug treatments. In the meantime, it would be great if Speaker Johnson did something useful, like file articles of impeachment against judges who engage in this kind of egregious behavior.