Chief D.C. Judge Sidesteps Congressional Judicial Misconduct Rules
Chief Judge Srikanth Srinivasan passed the buck on a complaint against a federal judge who showed obvious bias in a case involving transgender service members.
It was a bizarre hearing, where a federal judge suggested a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer was ignoring what Jesus would do and said that University of Virginia law school grads are “liars and lack integrity.”
Seemingly obvious ethical lines were breached by U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes of the District of Columbia, who was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022 and is said to be the first Latino woman and openly LGBTQ person to serve as a federal judge in the District of Columbia.
The case was brought by active-duty transgender service members who are seeking to bar implementation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order excluding trans from serving in the military.
In Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” Trump states, in his capacity as the Commander in Chief, that: “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria” are incompatible with the high standards demanded for “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
Reyes issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order on March 19, saying it was “soaked in animus,” factually unjustified, and degrading to transgender people. The U.S. Department of Justice has appealed.
A month earlier, Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed a complaint accusing Reyes of “hostile and egregious” misconduct after a hearing on Feb. 18 and 19.
The complaint alleges Reyes violated judicial canons that require judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and “be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants.”
It was recently disclosed that Reyes’ boss, U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan summarily dismissed the complaint on September 29, apparently without even conducting an inquiry.
Judge Srinivasan passed the buck
Judge Srinivasan did not mention in his order dismissing Mizelle’s complaint that Congress has assigned him, as the chief circuit judge, the primary responsibility for screening and initially deciding misconduct or disability complaints against federal judges in the circuit.
Instead, he wrote that the “ordinary procedure” for a complaint such as the one filed by Mizelle is to file a motion to recuse a judge who is thought to be biased or prejudiced. He said such a motion would be subject to “appellate review, in which the court of appeals would assess whether a reasonable and informed observer would question the judge’s impartiality.” Judge Srinivasan accused Mizelle of attempting to “sidestep the ordinary process” and dismissed the complaint.
This all seems contrary to Congressional intent displayed in 28 U.S.C. Chapter 16, Section 52:
The chief circuit judge must “expeditiously” review misconduct complaints.
The chief judge can dismiss the complaint if it is not directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or “frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred, or containing allegations which are incapable of being established through investigation.”
The chief judge may conduct a limited inquiry showing the allegations lack factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence.
The chief judge can dismiss the complaint if it finds appropriate correction action was taken or the complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events.
Judge Srinivasan did none of the above.
Obvious Bias?
The alleged bias displayed by Reyes at the February hearing seems both striking and obvious. Despite her ethical obligation to be impartial, Reyes stated:
There could be “anywhere near about 30 different inter sex examples.”
Trump was “literally erasing transgender people.”
She referred to an email she had received and asked the DOJ attorney: “What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’? Or do you think Jesus would say, ‘WTF? Of course, let them in.?’” (The DOJ attorney responded: “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”)
She repeatedly used the acronym, “WTF.”
“I made a change to a standing order when I was in the back. My new standing order says that no one who has graduated from UVA Law School can appear before me. So, I need to you to sit down, please. I need you to sit down.”
UVA grads are “all liars and lack integrity.”
The complaint charged that Reyes improperly made the DOJ counsel a prop in her invective, which represented an inappropriate exercise of judicial authority. Moreover, Mizelle alleges Reyes showed “diminished respect for counsel and created an intimidating atmosphere inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.”
Mizelle requested “action be taken to address these violations and to ensure that future proceedings in this court are conducted with the dignity and impartiality the public has a right to expect. At minimum, this matter warrants further investigation… .”
Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, posted about Reyes decision to block Trump’s executive order on social media, writing, “District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces. Is there no end to this madness?”
The U.S. Senate in May 2022 voted 51-47 to confirm Reyes, a vote that most Republicans opposed. Reyes was born in Montevideo, Uruguay, and grew up in Louisville, KY. She graduated from Harvard Law School. Prior to her lifetime appointment to the judiciary, she was a partner at the D.C.-based law firm of Williams & Connolly.