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!