A Year Into Trump 2.0, Judicial Insurrectionists Reign Supreme

Rogue judges across the country are putting the Constitution through the paper shredder to give their leftist allies the outcomes they want.

'Lawless activism': Foreign-born Biden judge strikes again, protects Haitians from removal



U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a foreign-born, Biden-appointed, lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and helped the U.N. secure asylum for so-called refugees — obliged her fellow immigration activists on Monday, blocking the revocation of Haiti's Temporary Protected Status.

That status, which Haitian migrants have enjoyed since January 2010 and over 352,000 Haitian migrants enjoy today, was set to expire on Tuesday. Without Reyes' intervention, the Trump administration would have been able to immediately repatriate many of those Haitians who have strained citizen resources and displaced American labor in cities such as Springfield, Ohio.

'Temporary means temporary.'

Reyes, a Uruguayan native, claimed, however, that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem not only violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause when terminating the TPS designation for Haiti but had likely done so "because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants."

Much of Reyes' Monday ruling in the class-action lawsuit reads like a piece of immigration activist agitprop.

In addition to characterizing Haitian TPS holders as valuable contributors to American society and some class members' removal back to Haiti as "devastating because they have no meaningful ties to the country," Reyes questioned why it was necessary to let the status expire now:

Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our health care system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things — in the public interest is not one of them.

The foreign-born judge suggested further that while the Trump administration "contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS holders are speculative," the State Department has issued travel advisories to Americans warning of the threats of kidnapping, crime, and civil unrest in the third-world nation.

RELATED: Trump administration halts visas for 75 nations whose people gobble up American welfare

Photo by REBECCA NOBLE/AFP via Getty Images

Noem determined last year after reviewing country conditions and consulting with the appropriate government agencies that the island nation no longer met the conditions for a TPS designation.

Reyes, the same judge who tried unsuccessfully last year to torpedo the War Department's ban on transvestites in the military, makes no secret of her animus toward the American-born DHS secretary throughout her ruling, using her conclusion, for instance, to cast Noem as a cold-hearted ignoramus.

"Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side — or at least has ignored them," wrote the Biden judge. "Does not have the law on her side — or at least has ignored it."

Reyes' fellow activists celebrated her ruling.

"This was the right decision. There is no evidence that the Trump administration took the time to make a clear-eyed assessment of the risks these families would face back in Haiti before moving to revoke TPS," Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement obtained by GBH News. "On the contrary, the revocation appears to have been driven by racial animus and political ideology."

"We can breathe for a little bit," Rose-Thamar Joseph, operations director of the Haitian Support Center in migrant-overwhelmed Springfield, Ohio, told the Associated Press.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in response to the ruling, "Supreme Court, here we come."

"This is lawless activism that we will be vindicated on," continued McLaughlin. "Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago, it was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades."

"Temporary means temporary, and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench," added McLaughlin.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

D.C. Appeals Court Upholds Trump’s Prohibition On ‘Trans’ Soldiers In The Military

In a major win for the Trump administration, a federal appellate court upheld the Pentagon’s prohibition on trans-identifying individuals from serving in the military on Tuesday. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals fully paused a March injunction issued by Biden-appointed District Judge Ana Reyes that sought to […]

If Congress Doesn’t Step In, Rogue Judges Will Trans The Military

Years could pass before the issue reaches the Supreme Court, which may or may not hand down a decision favoring the Trump policy. This puts the ball squarely in Congress’s court.

Trump Isn’t Defying The Courts, He’s Defending The Constitution

The courts have an important constitutional role to fulfill. But it’s not to play president.

Valley Girl Federal Judge Cites Broadway Play, Rips Up Constitution In Trans Soldiers Screed

Even leftists know the Constitution would never allow courts to force presidents to enlist deranged men wearing skirts. That's why they hate the Constitution.

Yes, Trump Should Ignore Rogue Judges

Blatantly ignore the court. Send out another flight of gang members, and tell the judge to try and stop it. The country will side with Trump, and we’ll start to break the chains of judicial tyranny.

Woke Biden judge blocks Trump ban of transvestites in military, fueling concerns over judicial overreach: 'Lunacy'



Democrat-appointed activist judges appear eager to prevent the democratically elected president from exercising his constitutional authority and realizing his popular agenda.

In the latest instance of judicial overreach, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Biden-appointed lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided to indefinitely block the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.

At issue in Talbott v. Trump, a case brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is Trump's Jan. 27 executive titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness" and the resulting Pentagon guidance.

Trump underscored in his order that the military's policy to establish "high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity" is incompatible with the accommodations sought and health constraints faced by gender-dysphoric individuals.

Trump added that those "expressing a false 'gender identity'" at odds with their actual sex "cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service" and cannot satisfy the soldier's "commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

The Pentagon's new guidance states:

Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security. Individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service.

Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, acknowledged in her Tuesday ruling that Trump has the "power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness." However, she figured that it was nevertheless her job to interfere, both characterizing Trump's exercise of presidential authority as an attempt to "deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving" and glossing over the military's prohibition on other medically and mentally compromised individuals enlisting, including those found to be on medications, women with abnormal uterine bleeding, men with deformed genitals, those with chronic anxiety, those who have committed self-harm, and those who have met in the past with psychiatrists.

Reyes suggested in her ruling that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch in its proper place, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

Reyes suggested further that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact."

Reyes clearly did not bother shrouding her animus toward the Trump administration in the ruling or during past hearings.

The foreign-born judge previously suggested that Trump, through his executive order directing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to update military policy to effectively ban medical and cosmetic transvestites from the military, was "literally erasing transgender people." In addition to claiming that Pete Hegseth, a recipient of two Bronze Stars, had no military experience, Reyes also tried to dunk on the administration with a bizarre distortion of Christian teaching, asking Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to Trump's order — prompting a misconduct complaint.

Fresh off condemning one Obama judge for preventing President Donald Trump from deporting terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and another Obama judge for "appoint[ing] himself king of foreign policy," Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, asked, "Is there no end to this madness?"

After noting that district court judges "have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces," Miller likened the actions taken by Reyes and other activist judges to "Marxist university professors being able to unilaterally veto, edit or override the exercise of presidential authority."

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," wrote Miller. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end."

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk noted, "We either have a presidency or we have a rule by 677 gavel-wielding dictators."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded, "We don't play 'Hail to the Chief' when they enter the courtroom."

An analysis of nationwide injunctions issued between 2001 and 2023 published last year in the Harvard Law Review revealed that Democrat-appointed judges zealously tried to hamstring the first Trump administration. Of a total of 96 injunctions issued across four administrations, the Trump administration was slapped with 64. Of those 64 injunctions, 59 were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Over 50% of all injunctions issued since 1963 were issued against Trump administration policies.

It appears that Reyes and some of her peers are keen to pick up where their fellow travelers left off.

When the first Trump administration passed a ban on transvestites in the military, the Supreme Court let it take effect in 2019. It did not, however, rule on its constitutionality. Reyes' latest effort to undermine the president may pave the way to such a ruling.

The Pentagon has until Friday to ask a higher court to stay Reyes' order. Failing that, it can appeal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden Judge Blocking The Military’s ‘Trans’ Policy Donated Thousands To Democrat Candidates, Causes

Reyes' left-wing track record calls into question her ability to remain impartial on political matters brought before her.

Cross-examining Christ: Biden judge distorts Jesus to slam Trump — but at what cost?



WWJD: What would Jesus do?

Based on a concept that St. Augustine developed — and then was popularized centuries later in the 1990s — WWJD became a topic of debate in a federal courtroom last month when U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, asked Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to one of President Donald Trump's executive orders defending women from trans ideology.

Reyes posed the bizarre question after reading aloud an email that she had received from a Christian who sought to evangelize her.

Reyes said:

Now, that email assumes that I don’t have a relationship with Jesus already. But let’s assume that I don’t, and I want to know what Jesus would think about something because I want to have a closer relationship with him, as I’ve been told to do.

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”?

To his credit, Lynch, though dumbfounded, refused the bait and told Reyes, "The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."

Though Reyes acknowledged that her question is "unfair" and "impossible," she declared, "But you can't tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against today."

Shocking as it may be, this exchange actually took place in a federal courthouse last month — and the problems are obvious.

DOJ files complaint

After the hearing, the DOJ filed a complaint against Reyes that accused her of violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

The complaint, among other allegations, accused Reyes of questioning Lynch about his "religious beliefs and then using him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics."

That specific accusation raises an important question: Did Reyes' question violate the Constitution?

Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman thinks it does. Citing the Religious Test Clause (Article VI, Section 3) — which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" — Blackman argued that Reyes asked Lynch a "purely theological question."

"It is, in every sense, a test about religious belief," he explained. "And the question is premised on the existence of Jesus as a deity."

Jesus, defiled

Potential misconduct aside, Reyes, acting like an anti-Trump activist, tried to use Jesus as her prop, stripping the risen Christ of his identity and reforming him into her own image: a political activist.

But Jesus is not a foul-mouthed LGBTQ activist.

The question is nothing more than a rhetorical sleight of hand full of irony.

When Reyes invokes Jesus, she is attempting to use Jesus' moral authority to bolster her case that the Trump administration is immoral. But her mischaracterization of him shows that she rejects Jesus' actual teachings.

Yes, Jesus preached a gospel of love; loving God and loving your neighbor is the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40). But Reyes neglects the other side of the equation: To love in the biblical imagination is not simply affirmation — but necessarily includes obeying Jesus' teachings.

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching," Jesus said (John 14:23).

Importantly, Jesus does not abrogate the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is clear that he is not abolishing the Old Testament but fulfilling it, later explicating the true meaning of many of the Old Testament commandments, including laws related to sexuality. Jesus, moreover, reaffirms what Genesis teaches about men, women, and human sexuality.

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

While Reyes thought she was appealing to Jesus' moral authority, what she really did was recast Jesus into a progressive mold. She ignored the fact that Jesus came to redeem the world from sin, she ignored the fact that Jesus called for repentance, and she ignored the fact that Jesus told his followers to take up a cross and follow him through death to eternal life.

Ultimately, Reyes' argument is build on a false dichotomy: that Jesus either would have demonstrated her version of compassion, which in this case means affirming transgender ideology, or he would be cruel.

What we're left with is a "Jesus" who looks nothing like the King of Kings, the righteous Lord who demands repentance and faith.

What would Jesus do?

For a moment, let's entertain Reyes' question because it's clear that Jesus neither would have said "Scram!" nor "You're just fine as you are."

First, Jesus would not intentionally mischaracterize his interlocutor because his kingdom is build on truth.

To that point, the Trump administration has not described trans-identifying persons as "worthless," and neither would Jesus. Sin doesn't make us worthless. Rather, God created every human with such incalculable value that he took on human flesh and stood in our place to reconcile us to himself. And because we are valuable, Jesus would probably meet the real needs of those presenting themselves to him, as he repeatedly did throughout his earthly ministry.

Second, Jesus would share the good news about his kingdom.

"The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" Jesus said (Mark 1:15).

It goes without saying: Repenting and believing the good news definitionally means turning away from all behavior that is incongruent with the kingdom of God. This includes all sexual immorality, which is not only a sin against God but a sin against ourselves.

In other words, Jesus not only meets our physical needs but our eternal needs, too. And in so doing, Jesus invites us to live in truth.

Third, Jesus would probably turn the question back onto Reyes as he often did to those questioning him. Perhaps, he would even challenge Reyes with the same question he asked his disciples: Who do you say that I am?

The real question isn't "What would Jesus do?" or "What would Jesus say?" The question is: Are we willing to follow Jesus instead of using him to bolster our own agendas?