Judge Reyes Spends Five Hours Asking for a Straight Answer on Trump's Golf Course. She Still Hasn't Gotten One.

The facts come first below. My opinion follows in the section marked as opinion.

A federal judge spent more than five hours on Monday trying to get a straight answer from the government about the East Potomac golf course. She still did not have one by day's end, and she did not rule.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes heard testimony from Interior Department and National Park Service officials in DC Preservation League v. Department of the Interior. A preservation group and two D.C. residents filed the suit in February to stop President Trump's plan to rebuild the public course in East Potomac Park, according to Bloomberg Law. The park was established in 1897. The hearing ended with Reyes taking no action, the Associated Press reported. Her order barring more tree cutting stays in force through at least Oct. 26. On Sunday night she refused a Justice Department request that she step aside.

A post before dawn

The day began with the president. At around 6 a.m., The Washington Post reported, Trump wrote that "the judge on the case is a crazed lunatic whose courthouse tapes will reveal, may be insane?" He added that "the random golfer bringing the ridiculous lawsuit has ZERO STANDING!" In a second post he said the Interior Department "wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so. It's as simple as that!"

That followed a Sunday post announcing that the course would close for 15 months starting Nov. 15, with a proposed map attached. Over the Columbus Day weekend, the Park Service had cut down hundreds of trees. A park official testified on Oct. 12 that 430 trees were knocked down, NBC News reported.

"I'm giving them a direct order"

The government's latest filing, signed only by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, argued that "the plan is not final because the Park Service has not completed its review." Reyes asked whether any of the government lawyers in the room, "as officers of the court," would put their names to it. Bloomberg Law reported that she ordered the filing resubmitted with the signatures of any attorneys in the case willing to sign, and suggested they raise their hands.

Woodward said that was not an "appropriate ask" and told the lawyers not to answer. "I'm giving them a direct order," Reyes replied. Woodward said she was putting them in an "untenable" position, and she ordered a brief on the question. ABC News reported the brief was due by 3 p.m. Monday. The Hill reported that Reyes later withdrew her request that the filing be refiled with more signatures.

"I have on the one hand the president of the United States saying to the public there is a final plan," Reyes said, according to AP, "and then I have you telling me there is no final plan."

The witnesses

Gregory Wischer, the Interior Department's deputy chief of staff, testified that the tree cutting was "cleaning up the course" under a 2019 landscaping plan, Bloomberg Law reported. According to The Hill, he said he learned of the "tree management plan" on Oct. 5 and that it was one of several beautification projects in Washington.

Reyes asked Justice Department lawyer Robert Stander whether it was a "coincidence" that a seven-year-old plan was put into action right after the president asked for changes. Stander said he did not know. He said he had "no reason to believe" anything the government told the court before was inaccurate. Reyes was not persuaded: "There is no universe in which all of this coincidentally happened all at the same time."

Acting Park Service Director Jessica Bowron testified that she did not know of any plan to close the course in mid-November. Superintendent Kevin Griess said the plan "isn't just about safety" but about "the restoration of the park to its original historic state of a links golf course." "I don't know what to do when I keep getting different stories from the government," Reyes said, according to The Hill.

The government also claimed attorney-client, deliberative-process and executive privilege over some questions, and Reyes asked for more briefing. She told the plaintiffs that a sweeping halt to all work was unlikely. The Hill reported she is weighing a narrower extension of her order. Near the end, AP reported, she said she was receiving threats: "A federal judge is getting death threats over a golf course. I really don't think that's what the founders envisioned."

Dock Line covered the Sunday filing in Trump Sets D.C. Golf Course Start Date as DOJ Tells Judge No Plan.

Opinion: Say one thing, and say it in court

The administration may well win this case on the law. Woodward argues that redesigning a golf course is not the kind of final agency action courts can review, and that is a serious argument. And a run-down public course could surely be made better.

But the government cannot tell the public one thing and tell a judge another. On Sunday the president posted a start date, a 15-month closure and a map. The same day, his lawyers told the court there is no final plan. Then 430 trees came down over a holiday weekend under a seven-year-old report that no one had acted on. A judge does not have to be hostile to find that hard to believe. Our Lord's rule is plain: "let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay."

Calling a sitting judge a "crazed lunatic" does not help the president's case, and it is beneath his office. When Paul spoke sharply to the high priest, he took it back, saying "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." We should honor the courts when they rule against us, too. And whoever is threatening Judge Reyes should stop. No golf course is worth that.