Judge’s Decision Over Trump Executive Order Stirs Debate

By
Rachel Stevenson
-

Another day, another unelected judge deciding they know best how to run the country. This time, it’s Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who has apparently decided that her personal feelings on transgender policy matter more than the constitutional authority of the President of the United States.

In a move that surprises absolutely no one paying attention to the activist-judiciary pipeline, she issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s new rules on transgender service members.

Of course, there’s just one little problem—her ruling is built on completely false information and, even worse, independent “research” that she conducted outside the official court record. Now, I may not be a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty big no-no when it comes to issuing a legal decision. Fortunately, actual civil liberties attorney Laura Powell laid out the issue in clear terms.

According to Powell, Reyes not only relied on inaccurate data, but she also took it upon herself to research disorders of sexual development (DSD), something that had absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. Judges are not allowed to conduct their own independent research and then use it as the basis for their rulings. The entire premise of our judicial system is that rulings are based on arguments presented by both sides, not whatever a judge happens to find on the internet after a few late-night Google searches.

And, wouldn’t you know it, the information Reyes used was flat-out wrong. She repeated the widely debunked claim that 1.7% of Americans are intersex, a statistic that has been exaggerated beyond recognition by activists looking to blur the lines between biological sex and gender ideology. She also made sweeping claims about where individuals with DSDs should be housed in the military—again, based on absolutely no evidence. In fact, when she directly asked a DOJ attorney about it, and he admitted he didn’t know, she just went ahead and made up her own answer anyway. That’s some real next-level judicial activism right there.

Beyond the procedural insanity of this decision, there’s the actual substance of the matter: the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, a fact clearly outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution. That means the President has broad authority to determine military policy, including who is eligible to serve. This isn’t some minor bureaucratic decision about office dress codes—it’s about national security and military readiness.

And let’s be blunt: allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military does nothing to improve readiness. If anything, it introduces significant logistical and medical burdens that have no place in a fighting force designed to be lean, effective, and combat-ready. The military is not a social experiment. It is not a proving ground for the latest left-wing ideological trend. It exists for one reason—to fight and win wars. Every single policy should be judged solely on whether it improves the ability of the armed forces to do that.

Yet here we are, with another leftist judge deciding that the Constitution, the chain of command, and basic military necessity all take a back seat to their personal agenda. It’s not just legally flawed—it’s dangerous. Fortunately, this decision will be appealed, and if there is even a shred of sanity left in the legal system, it will be overturned. Until then, we can only shake our heads at how far the activist bench will go to impose its worldview on the rest of the country.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR