If you thought the legal battle over President Donald Trump's plans for Washington, D.C.'s East Potomac Golf Course might settle down over the weekend, think again.
As RedState reported Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to disqualify U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes from the litigation after she sharply criticized government attorneys during an emergency hearing over the removal of hundreds of trees.
Since then, we've had multiple presidential Truth Social posts, a pointed judicial rebuke, and another rather contentious courtroom confrontation.
And it's only Monday.
First, the recusal motion.
Late Sunday, Reyes issued a 13-page memorandum opinion denying the DOJ's request that she step aside.
The motion, personally signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, accused Reyes of demonstrating hostility toward the administration through her treatment of government attorneys and her demands for testimony from senior executive officials.
Reyes was not amused:
That is a serious charge. The Court answers it. With the record.
She pointed to numerous occasions when she refused plaintiffs' requests for relief and praised government counsel, arguing that her anger during last week's hearing did not establish the deep-seated antagonism necessary to warrant disqualification.
Under Supreme Court precedent, judicial irritation — even anger — ordinarily isn't enough to require recusal.
Then came Monday morning.
Before the scheduled hearing, Trump posted another message, calling Reyes a "crazed lunatic," challenging the plaintiffs' standing, and declaring that work on the golf course would begin "IMMEDIATELY!"
Plaintiffs promptly filed the post with the court (naturally).
And when proceedings began, things got interesting.
According to Politico, Reyes confronted Woodward over a brief he had signed Sunday evening, demanding to know whether other DOJ attorneys were willing to put their names on it.
Woodward objected, arguing that the demand placed his colleagues in an untenable position.
The dispute raised questions about Rule 11, which requires attorneys signing court filings to certify that their legal arguments and factual representations have a proper basis. Of note: The rule does not require every attorney representing a party to sign every submission.
Reyes initially ordered further briefing on the issue.
But then came another twist.
According to Lawfare's Anna Bower, Reyes later withdrew her demand that the DOJ refile the submission with additional signatures, explaining that she'd reconsidered after consulting with her law clerks.
Just now: Judge Reyes withdraws her request for DOJ to re-file yesterday's submission with any other DOJ attorneys who are willing to sign it. Reyes says she made decision after thinking about it more, consulting with her clerks.
— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) October 19, 2026
The reversal appears to resolve that particular dispute, though the broader disagreement over judicial authority remains.
Meanwhile, the hearing turned to testimony from senior Interior Department officials regarding whether the recent tree removal was genuinely independent of Trump's proposed championship-course redevelopment. (If the tree removal was actually part of the larger golf course redevelopment, the government could face additional environmental-review requirements before proceeding. If the tree removal was a separate historic-restoration project, as the administration maintains, it could be evaluated independently under a more limited environmental review.)
Interior official Greg Wischer maintained the projects were separate, despite acknowledging his involvement in discussions concerning the president's plans. Acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron reportedly attributed the timing of the tree removal to available personnel and funding.
Reyes expressed skepticism that the overlapping timelines were coincidental.
So where do things stand now?
The temporary restraining order halting further tree removal remains in effect through October 26. Reyes has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.
The DOJ continues to dispute both the court's authority to review the project and aspects of Reyes's handling of the proceedings. And the administration's recusal motion, although denied, may not be the final word on the subject.
For now, we're awaiting the court's next move.
Who knew a golf course could generate this much legal rough?
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.