Dem
47
GOP
53
When Donald Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche cooked up a scheme to file a "lawsuit" against the IRS in the Southern District of Florida to extract taxpayer money and other perks for Trump and his family, they no doubt hoped to draw Trump minion Aileen Cannon as the judge. But Cannon, who has never met a Trump scam she couldn't give a legal-sounding stamp of approval, was not assigned this particular grift (it's random). Instead, it was given to U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who had some rather pointed questions about its legitimacy, given that Trump appeared to be on both sides of the case. She wanted to know whether the parties were actually adverse to one another, since Trump essentially controlled the agency he was allegedly litigating against.
Seeing the writing on the wall, Blanche tried to side-step those inconvenient questions by coming up with a "settlement" and then quickly dismissing the case before even filing a response to the complaint. The so-called "settlement" had two parts: (1) a $1.8 billion slush fund to reward the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and (2) an immunity deal for Trump's family and businesses from any investigations by any governmental agency, including, but not limited to, the IRS. The judge smelled a rat, but determined she had no choice but to dismiss the suit.
Enter 35 former federal judges, appointed by presidents of both parties, who filed a motion asking the judge to reopen the case and examine whether the case and its settlement were a product of collusion and a "fraud on the court." Williams agreed to look at those claims and on Monday, she issued her ruling.
And so it is that another federal judge has let Trump have it with both barrels. Here are a few salient quotes: "The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law." "The DOJ seems to have purposefully adopted the strategy of creating a slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled." And "This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse."
Williams reminded the parties of the defenses to these types of suits that the IRS has normally raised to get these cases dismissed, like the 2-year statute of limitations, and the vigorous defense by the DOJ in every case. "That is," the Judge added, "every case until the instant litigation."
In finding that Trump controls both sides of the litigation, Williams cleverly referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter, "Article II requires that the President control all executive power—especially the authority wielded by agency heads, who are the most important of the President's subordinates and who must be the President's alter ego in their agencies." She also cited Trump's Executive Order No. 14215 issued on February 18, 2025, which explicitly gives Trump sole authority over legal interpretations and "positions advanced in litigation." So much for the independence of the DOJ or any other agency. Williams wrote, "Not surprisingly then, no attorney appeared on Defendants' behalf, challenged Plaintiffs' actions, or justified the United States' position in any way."
The Court concluded that "this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." At this stage, the judge has limited tools at her disposal to hold the parties accountable. But she can impose what's called Rule 11 sanctions, and boy, did she. She referred Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and attorney Alejandro Brito to their respective state bars for disciplinary action. She also essentially prohibited Daniel Epstein, one of Trump's lawyers on the "plaintiffs" side, from practicing law in Florida for one year.
As for the purported "settlement agreement," the judge's order prohibits the parties from calling it a "settlement agreement" and prohibits them from using it or citing it in any official proceeding. As a practical matter, this means that when the next administration restarts the tax audit or investigates Trump for illegally profiting from the presidency or stealing classified documents, he can't raise this document as a defense in court. So, this ruling effectively means the alleged agreement is illegitimate and can't be relied on to prevent future accountability.
Finally, Williams ordered the plaintiffs to pay the attorneys' fees of the Court-appointed amici and invited the 35 former federal judges to also file a motion seeking attorneys' fees. While the Court-appointed amici apparently declined any reimbursement, our guess is that the former judges won't be so generous. At the end of the day, this could become an expensive exercise for Trump and his family. It should be noted that the judge took the time to lavish praise on the amici and their "uncompromising commitment to the rule of law [that] are hallmarks of a vigorous, independent legal profession critical to sustaining a vigorous, independent judiciary." Take that, Todd Blanche.
The timing of this ruling could prove to be inconvenient for Blanche, whose confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee is today. The judge had some pretty choice words regarding Blanche's improper behavior that just may come up. He violated ethics rules and laws regarding conflicts of interest in putting his former client's interests ahead of his obligations on behalf of the public. He violated the statute that prohibits agreeing to terminate IRS audits. She also noted that even though Blanche signed the alleged settlement and was presumably bound by it, he testified before Congress that the slush fund was not moving forward, without getting anything in writing from the plaintiffs. According to the Court, this testimony "demonstrates his confidence that he could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter. This certitude supports the conclusion that the Parties worked in tandem and were never actually adverse."
The Attorney General represents the interests of the American people; Blanche represents only Trump's interests. It will be very interesting to see how the Republican votes line up for yet another wholly unqualified and dangerous Trump nominee. Perhaps the Republicans will again meekly fall in line to allow Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to vote "no" so she can claim she's independent while not actually making any difference. That said, one of Blanche's staunchest defenders on the Judiciary Committee was one Lindsey Graham, whose passing may prove to be a fatal blow to the wannabe AG's candidacy. (L)