Judge Ana Reyes Denies DOJ Recusal Request in East Potomac Golf Course Dispute
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes denied the Department of Justice’s motion to recuse herself from the lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s plan to redevelop the East Potomac Golf Course in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 19, 2026.
The ruling keeps the judge on the case that pits the federal government against the D.C. Preservation League and other plaintiffs who argue the renovation violates environmental and historic‑preservation laws. A temporary restraining order that bars further tree removal at the course remains in effect until Oct. 26.
In her written opinion, Reyes concluded that the government had not met the burden required to show she should be disqualified. She cited Supreme Court precedent that mere irritation or anger shown during a hearing does not rise to the level of deep antagonism needed for recusal. The judge noted that while she had expressed frustration in a prior hearing, that emotion alone did not undermine her impartiality.
Later that same day, Reyes withdrew a separate request that the DOJ refile a filing with additional attorney signatures. She said the decision came after further consultation with her law clerks, indicating a willingness to adjust procedural demands.
The dispute stems from the Trump administration’s effort to turn the historic 1917 East Potomac Golf Course into a venue capable of hosting professional tournaments. The administration frames the project as a routine renovation, while plaintiffs argue it represents a major agency action that requires comprehensive environmental review. The DOJ’s recusal motion followed a contentious hearing in which the judge sharply questioned government attorneys about the sudden removal of hundreds of trees.
During the hearing, interior officials testified that the tree removal was part of routine maintenance, not directly tied to the proposed redesign. The judge expressed skepticism, noting that the timing coincided with the administration’s renovation timeline. The court’s temporary restraining order, originally issued to halt tree removal, was extended through Oct. 26, preserving the existing trees pending further litigation.
Reyes’ decision leaves the litigation proceeding under her oversight while the parties continue to argue whether the renovation qualifies as a major federal action subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The next steps include the plaintiffs’ request for a longer‑lasting preliminary injunction and ongoing discovery into the administration’s planning process.
