A bipartisan coalition of former federal judges has filed a motion asking a federal court to reopen President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, alleging that the Justice Department circumvented judicial oversight by striking a settlement that created a $1.776 billion fund for individuals who claim the government has wronged them.
The group, comprising more than 30 retired district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges appointed by presidents from both parties, argued in their Wednesday filing that the DOJ “deceived” U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams. They contend that the department announced the settlement with Trump after his legal team had already moved to dismiss the case without mentioning the agreement.
Under the terms of that settlement, the DOJ established a nearly $2 billion “anti-weaponization” fund designed to offer “formal apologies and monetary relief” to successful claimants. While the department insists there are “no partisan requirements” to apply, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have raised alarms that individuals convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack could receive taxpayer money from the fund.
The original lawsuit, filed by Trump in January, stemmed from an IRS contractor leaking his tax returns to multiple news outlets. As part of the resolution, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche barred the IRS from auditing the prior tax returns of the president, his family, or his businesses. Notably, the IRS falls under the Treasury Department, not the DOJ, raising questions about the scope of the settlement.
In their filing, the former judges wrote that the settlement “threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice.” They highlighted unresolved legal questions about whether the case was even “legitimate,” given that Trump had sued an agency he oversees as president.
The judges asked Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, to “set aside” her order ending the case. “That will allow the Court to commence an inquiry into whether the Court was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy and any purported arms-length negotiations undertaken to resolve it,” they wrote.
This development comes amid broader political tensions, as Trump's cabinet meeting this week touched on stalled Iran talks and tightened Ebola screenings, while the midterm election landscape shifts. Meanwhile, a new poll shows Latino voters cooling on Trump but not yet embracing Democrats, signaling potential electoral shifts. The former judges' motion adds a legal dimension to the ongoing debate over executive power and accountability.
