On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, Law&Crime reported that a federal judge expressed severe criticism toward Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers during a preliminary injunction hearing regarding the Pentagon’s transgender military ban. U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, appointed by President Joe Biden, scrutinized the government’s legal representation, highlighting their lack of preparedness and inadequate legal analysis.
The hearing stemmed from a lawsuit filed on January 28 by Nicolas Talbott and others against the transgender ban, asserting that it violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating based on sex and transgender status. The plaintiffs have amended their complaint multiple times to include additional transgender military members, seeking to prevent the ban from taking effect as scheduled later in March.
Judge Reyes opened the hearing by referencing previous iterations of the transgender military ban implemented during Donald Trump’s presidency. She quickly criticized the DOJ for omitting a crucial clause from a court filing, which states that service members exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria could be discharged. The judge argued that this broad interpretation could lead to the dismissal of individuals with depression, suggesting it would adversely affect military staffing.
Throughout the proceeding, Judge Reyes emphasized the importance of precision in the DOJ’s arguments, particularly when requesting judicial approval for sweeping policy changes. When a DOJ attorney claimed they were not asking for the court’s endorsement, Reyes dismissed this assertion, indicating that the context of an adversarial proceeding required more thorough responses.
The discussion shifted to a post shared on X (formerly Twitter) by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, which stated that transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption. Judge Reyes pointed out inconsistencies between the content of the government’s court filings and Hegseth’s statements on social media. The DOJ lawyer attempted to downplay the significance of Hegseth’s post, but Reyes questioned why the court should disregard the words of a high-ranking official who issued the policy.
The judge insisted on the relevance of Hegseth’s remarks, stating that his social media presence attracts millions of followers and is funded by the public. She mandated that the government must secure a declaration from Hegseth by March 17 clarifying that his post does not accurately represent the Department of Defense’s position; otherwise, the court would factor it into its ruling on the injunction.
The hearing also delved into the plaintiffs’ allegations that the anti-transgender policy is fueled by “unconstitutional animus.” The DOJ rejected this assertion, citing the Supreme Court case Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the constitutionality of the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries. However, Judge Reyes challenged this comparison, stating that the circumstances surrounding the travel ban and the current transgender ban are fundamentally different.
The judge expressed skepticism about the DOJ’s reliance on Trump v. Hawaii, emphasizing that the travel ban had undergone numerous changes over time, which distinguishes it from the ongoing disputes regarding the transgender military policy. She stressed that the current situation is complicated by the administration’s continued public statements regarding categorical bans on transgender individuals.
As the hearing progressed, Judge Reyes scrutinized the Pentagon’s reliance on scientific studies to justify the anti-transgender policy. She accused the government of grossly misrepresenting the findings of these studies, expressing disbelief that the lead DOJ attorney had not read them thoroughly. The judge asked pointedly whether understanding the studies was crucial to the case, reflecting her frustration with the government’s lack of preparation.
Following a brief recess, the hearing resumed with Reyes reiterating her discontent with how the Pentagon interpreted the studies, asserting that they selectively used data to create a misleading narrative about the deployment suitability of transgender service members. According to Reyes, the evidence actually indicated that transgender individuals may be equally or more capable of serving compared to their cisgender counterparts.
The DOJ attorney acknowledged that some data points could be interpreted differently than the administration’s stance but remained noncommittal about the broader implications. The hearing, which primarily focused on the defense’s arguments, is expected to continue with discussions about constitutional justifications for enforcing the ban.
Judge Reyes clarified her rigorous questioning, stating that her intent was to ensure all relevant information was on the record before considering the extraordinary request to enjoin a policy issued by the President of the United States.
On February 21, 2025, AbusiveDiscretion reported that the Justice Department filed a complaint against Judge Reyes, alleging misconduct during hearings on Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from military service. The complaint, filed by Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accuses Reyes of inappropriate questioning and bias, raising concerns about judicial impartiality.
Source: Law&Crime
