A group of Proud Boys members found themselves facing a new judicial audience in their $100 million lawsuit against the government, following an unexpected change in the judicial assignment.

On Friday, the case, which is being heard in Florida, was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe. Appointed by former President Donald Trump, Judge Moe assumed her position on the bench just last week, bringing a fresh perspective to the proceedings.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Wendy W. Berger, also a Trump appointee from his first term, was initially tasked with overseeing the case.

Traditionally, cases within the Middle District of Florida are assigned randomly to judges, ensuring impartiality from the outset.

The reasons behind the recent reassignment remain unclear at this time.

Case assignment processes vary across the United States, typically managed locally by either a court clerk or chief judge. While the initial assignment is usually random, the specifics can differ from one jurisdiction to another.

The court”s docketing and assignment rules read, in relevant part:

On receipt of an initial paper, the clerk must classify the paper as civil, criminal, or miscellaneous; assign the paper a distinct number; and randomly assign the paper to a district judge, a magistrate judge, or both. The clerk cannot change the initial assignment without an order from the judge or the chief judge. The clerk must report promptly to the chief judge an apparent attempt to evade the random assignment of an initial paper.

An FAQ section of the court’s website further explains: “The court randomly assigns a district and magistrate judge to each case, using an automated case-management system.”

The public docket for the case does not give any indication as to why the judicial reassignment occurred.

The latest public filings show a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants over a request for “affirmative relief in a response.”

To hear the Department of Justice tell it, the Proud Boys plaintiffs made “several requests” of the court in “briefs in opposition to the motions to dismiss.” And, the DOJ says, those requests were all improper.

Additionally, the government says the plaintiffs’ attorneys made something of a false claim about the requested relief.

“In one of their opposition briefs, Plaintiffs certified that ‘Counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for the United States pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g) on 11 August 2025. The United States opposes the relief requested herein,’” the DOJ’s latest filing reads. “Plaintiffs never sought the United States’ position on these requests for relief. And Defendants fear that by failing to respond, the Court might treat those requests as unopposed.”

In late September, the government asked the court for permission to file another brief directly addressing those alleged requests.

Earlier this month, attorneys for the Proud Boys, in turn, followed up to say they were not actually making any such new requests.

Days later, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick denied the government’s motion, taking the Proud Boys’ position at face value — while reiterating the position that the government was trying to vindicate.

“It is improper for a party request affirmative relief in a response, and the Court regularly rejects attempts to do so,” the terse, one-paragraph order reads. “Further, to the extent Plaintiffs’ response may be construed as requesting affirmative relief, they have clarified that they were not making such a request. Accordingly, no reply is necessary.”

That magistrate’s order was the last docket entry before Berger was taken off the case and replaced by Moe.

Notably, the final bit of discord prior to the judicial changing of the guard was a function of the government’s outright opposition to the lawsuit filed by the members of the traditionally pro-Trump group.

After being granted clemency by Trump over Jan. 6-related charges, five plaintiffs, led by Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, alleged the DOJ and FBI committed “violations of their constitutional rights” in a “political prosecution” over their “alleged participation in the planning of” the attack on the national seat of legislative government.

In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the DOJ points to particulars.

Four plaintiffs, it turns out, only received commutations of their sentences — and are currently appealing from the final judgments in their criminal cases. The long and short of this state of affairs, the DOJ argues, is that those plaintiffs currently “have ongoing prosecutions.”

And to that end, the government notes, the plaintiffs — who are also still technically criminal defendants despite any threat to their liberty interests for the crimes in question — are dealing with the same set of facts, as well as the same legal issues, in their lawsuit.

“All claims brought here challenge the underlying convictions,” the DOJ’s motion to dismiss filed in August argues. “Thus, the risk of parallel litigation and conflicting judgments is substantial.”

Whether replacing one Trump-appointed judge with another Trump-appointed judge is likely to mean much is an open question.

Tarrio, for his part, appeared to welcome the change.

In an all-caps post on X (formerly Twitter), he quote-tweeted the news and wrote: “Elections Have Consequences.”

Law&Crime reached out to the Middle District of Florida for clarification on the change but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.