WASHINGTON (AP) — On Friday, the Justice Department lodged a complaint against a federal judge in Washington, accusing her of misconduct during hearings related to President Donald Trump’s executive directive to ban transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.

Filed by Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, this complaint signifies an intensification of the Republican administration’s critique of the judicial system, which has been evaluating numerous legal challenges to the President’s directives.

The complaint, addressed to the chief judge of Washington’s federal court, claims that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes improperly interrogated a government lawyer regarding his religious views and attempted to “embarrass” him through a rhetorical exercise during a discussion on discrimination. It calls for an investigation, asserting that “appropriate action” is essential to ensure future hearings maintain the “dignity and impartiality that the public expects.”

A spokesperson from Reyes’ office declined to provide a comment on the matter on Friday.

During the aforementioned rhetorical exercise, Judge Reyes claimed to have amended the rules in her court to prohibit graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing because she deemed them all to be “liars lacking integrity.” She ordered the government attorney, who attended that school, to take a seat.

In another instance noted in the complaint, the judge queried the attorney about what “Jesus would say to asserting that a group of people is so worthless that they aren’t allowed into homeless shelters.” She followed up with, “Do you think Jesus would agree with that sentiment?”

The government lawyer replied, “The United States is not in a position to speculate on what Jesus would opine about any matter.”

Mizelle stated, “An independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our legal system. When judges exhibit apparent bias or treat attorneys with disrespect, it erodes public trust in the judicial process.”

Judge Reyes has a reputation for delivering stern rebukes to attorneys on both sides of the aisle. Earlier this month, she chastised former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who represents eight government watchdogs suing the Trump administration over their dismissals. She denied an emergency motion and criticized the notion of holding a hearing on such a matter instead of resolving it with a “five-minute phone call.”

The Trump administration has been increasingly vocal in its criticism of judges who block aspects of its ambitious agenda introduced early in the President’s term.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently accused judges of behaving like “activists rather than objective interpreters of the law.” Supporters of the administration have taken to social media, sharing images of judges, making claims about their families, and even suggesting that the President ignore judges’ orders.

Reyes, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, has indicated that she will not reach a decision before early March on whether to issue a temporary block against the Trump administration’s enforcement of the order, which plaintiffs argue discriminates unlawfully against transgender service members.

However, her inquiries and comments suggest a deep skepticism regarding the administration’s justification for the policy change. Reyes has also praised the service of several active-duty soldiers who are part of the lawsuit seeking to prevent the enforcement of the order.

“If you were in a foxhole, would an individual’s gender identity matter to you?” the judge posed to the government attorney, who replied that it “would not be a primary concern.”

Trump’s January 27 directive asserts that the gender identity of transgender military personnel “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to a truthful, disciplined lifestyle, even in private matters” and could compromise military readiness. The order mandates Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to implement a revised policy.

Six active-duty transgender service members and two prospective recruits have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, aiming to block the order’s enforcement. In their court documents, the plaintiffs’ attorneys contend that Trump’s directive openly exhibits “hostility” and constitutionally impermissible “animus” towards transgender individuals.

Furthermore, Trump’s order argues that the “use of pronouns that do not accurately represent a person’s gender” contradicts a government policy aimed at “establishing high standards for troop readiness, cohesion, integrity, humility, and honesty.”