https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/35-former-judges-say-trump-doj-deceived
~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~
 |
Thirty-five former federal judges have asked a federal court in Florida to reopen President Trump’s now-dismissed lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, arguing that the court may have been deceived when Trump lawyers voluntarily dismissed the case without first disclosing to the judge the settlement creating a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and IRS immunity for the Trump family and businesses. The serious
The motion was filed May 27 in the Southern District of Florida before U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who had dismissed the case after Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The lawsuit had been brought by Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization over the leaking of Trump’s tax returns. DOJ later announced that the case had been settled through a fund for people claiming they were wronged by the federal government — and, according to reporting, through protections involving IRS audits of Trump, his family, and his businesses.
That alone would be remarkable: a sitting president sues agencies inside the executive branch he controls, then his own Justice Department settles the case on terms that appear to benefit him and potentially many of his political allies.
But the filing by the former judges raises a more precise legal problem, and it is the part of the story that deserves careful attention.
Before the case was dismissed, Judge Williams had already identified the constitutional question at the center of the lawsuit: whether there was a real adversarial case or controversy at all. She had not ruled on this but she had identified as an issue the fact that there did not appear to be any genuine adversarial case of controversy. Stated another way — she had raised questions suggesting that the litigation could be something approaching a sham — and she did so because Federal courts do not exist to approve friendly arrangements, staged litigation, or collusive disputes. They can hear only actual cases between genuinely adverse parties, and in the judge’s view, there was a serious question about whether this was a genuine dispute.
That issue was obvious here because Trump was, in practical terms, suing his own government. The IRS and Treasury are not private adversaries. They are executive branch agencies under the President. DOJ, which defended the case and then settled it, is also part of the executive branch under the President. And Trump had reportedly described the situation himself as working out “a settlement with myself,” a phrase quoted in an earlier House amicus filing challenging the legitimacy of the case.
Then, before the court resolved whether the case was real enough to be in federal court, Trump’s lawyers filed a voluntary dismissal without acknowledging the extraordinary settlement agreement that went along with dismissal. The dismissal notice did not disclose the settlement terms or even acknowledge that a settlement had occurred. The judge then dismissed the case. Only afterward did DOJ publicly announce the settlement and the creation of the $1.776 billion fund and immunity for Trump, his businesses, and his family.
That sequence is the heart of the former judges’ filing.
They are not merely saying the settlement looks corrupt, self-dealing, or politically outrageous. They are asking Judge Williams to set aside the dismissal and reopen the case so she can investigate whether the court was misled — and whether the lawsuit was ever a legitimate adversarial proceeding in the first place—or something else
The filing puts the point bluntly:
“The Court was deceived.”
That is not yet a judicial finding. It is the allegation. But it is an allegation made by 35 former federal judges, including former appellate, district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges, and it is aimed at the integrity of the judicial process itself. The filing argues that the undisclosed settlement “raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system.”
That is what makes this development different from the earlier rounds of criticism.
The question is no longer only whether the Trump IRS deal is a scandal. The question is whether DOJ used a lawsuit of doubtful legitimacy as the legal vehicle for a massive settlement — while keeping the settlement out of the judge’s view until after the case was already dismissed.
Why the missing settlement matters
In many civil cases, a court never reviews the settlement terms. Parties settle. A dismissal is filed. The case goes away. That is normal.
But this was not normal litigation.
The plaintiff was the sitting president. The defendants were executive branch agencies under that president. The Justice Department was effectively defending the government against the man who controls the executive branch. The lawsuit sought billions of dollars. And the settlement was not merely a private payment to end a private dispute. It created what DOJ called an Anti-Weaponization Fund, with authority to issue monetary relief and formal apologies to successful claimants.
That matters because the settlement appears to depend on the existence of a legitimate case. If there was a real dispute, DOJ can argue that it settled litigation risk. Maybe that argument is weak. Maybe it is outrageous. But it is at least recognizable as a settlement argument.
If there was not a real dispute, the logic collapses.
A defendant settles because it faces risk. It might lose. Discovery might expose damaging facts. Trial might produce a judgment. Settlement is supposed to reflect a compromise between parties with competing interests.
But if the president was effectively negotiating with his own administration, why would the government need to pay anything? And why would it agree to a settlement measured in billions?
That is why the phrase “arms-length negotiations” matters so much. The former judges are asking whether there were real negotiations between genuinely adverse parties, or whether the lawsuit functioned as legal cover for a self-dealing constructed outcome the various executive branch players involved collectively wanted to produce.
The former judges’ requested relief is that they want Judge Williams to set aside her order ending the case so the court can inquire whether it was deceived, including as to “the existence of an underlying case or controversy” and “any purported arms-length negotiations.”
That is the whole legal issue in one sentence.
Was there a real case?
Was there a real settlement?
Or was the court used in a way that allowed the collusive creation of a $1.776B slush fund that could never have been created through legislation or any other legitimate way. Not to mention the immunity for Trump and his family.
The Rule 60 theory
The procedural tool the former judges invoke is Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
That matters because the case was dismissed voluntarily. Under Rule 41, a plaintiff can often dismiss a case before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. In many cases, that ends the matter automatically.
But Rule 60 allows courts to set aside judgments or orders in certain circumstances, including fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, voidness, or extraordinary circumstances. It also preserves a court’s authority to address “fraud on the court.”
The former judges’ filing relies on that authority. Their theory is that the dismissal should be reopened not because outsiders dislike the settlement, but because the court may have been deprived of material information before the case disappeared.
That is an important distinction.
They are not saying, “Judge, review this settlement because it is politically offensive.”
They are saying, “Judge, you were already examining whether this was a real case. Then the parties dismissed the case without disclosing the settlement. Then DOJ announced the settlement and used the dismissed case as the basis for a $1.776 billion fund. You should reopen the matter to determine whether the judicial process was manipulated.”
That is a much stronger and more court-centered argument.
It puts the injury not only on taxpayers, Congress, or Trump’s political opponents. It puts the injury on the court itself.
The Article III problem
The deepest issue is constitutional.
Article III limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies. This is not a technical rule. It is one of the boundaries that keeps federal judges from becoming instruments of political convenience.
Courts cannot decide abstract questions. They cannot bless prearranged outcomes. They cannot preside over sham disputes in which both sides are, in substance, aligned.
That is why the posture of Trump’s IRS suit was so unusual from the beginning. Trump brought the case in his personal capacity, but as president he also sits at the top of the executive branch whose agencies he sued. DOJ, meanwhile, is supposed to represent the United States — not the personal financial or political interests of the president.
The earlier House amicus brief put the problem directly, arguing that while Trump is president, “the collusion between the parties has eliminated any justiciable case or controversy.”
The former judges now take that concern and link it to the settlement.
If the lawsuit was non-adversarial, then the settlement may not be a true compromise of litigation. It may be a government benefit conferred through the appearance of litigation.
That would matter for several reasons.
It would matter to the court, because the court may have been asked to process a case that was not constitutionally proper.
It would matter to Congress, because the settlement appears to create a massive fund outside normal appropriations.
It would matter to taxpayers, because public money would be paid out through a mechanism whose legal foundation depends on the validity of the settlement.
And it would matter to the rule of law, because the president and his administration cannot create legal authority simply by staging a lawsuit and then settling it.
What might happen now
There is no indication yet that Judge Williams has decided to reopen the case.
But there are several possible next steps.
She could deny the former judges’ request and leave the dismissal intact. That would not end the broader controversy, because the fund is already being challenged elsewhere and will remain a political and legal flashpoint.
She could ask DOJ and Trump’s lawyers to respond. That would be the first meaningful sign that she is taking the filing seriously.
She could reopen the case for the limited purpose of examining the dismissal and the settlement. That would not necessarily mean she had decided the settlement was unlawful. It would mean she believes the questions raised are serious enough to require answers.
She could order the settlement agreement and related communications to be filed or produced.
She could hold a hearing on whether the case was genuinely adversarial, whether the court was misled, and whether the dismissal should be set aside.
And if she ultimately concluded there was no real Article III case or controversy, the settlement’s legal foundation could be seriously damaged.
That is why this filing is significant. The immediate question is procedural: will the judge reopen the case? But the deeper question is structural: can a president use a lawsuit against his own government as the basis for a multi-billion-dollar settlement that benefits himself, his family, his businesses, and politically favored claimants?
If there was a real case, DOJ can try to defend the settlement as an extraordinary compromise.
If there was no real case, then the settlement may not be a settlement at all.
It may be an executive-branch political fund dressed up as the resolution of a lawsuit.
And that is the issue the former judges are trying to put back before the court.
This is an interesting filing and I enjoyed reading the whole thing and offering some analysis. I hope it helps facilitate a deeper understanding of what’s happening with this situation. Now we wait for the judge
No comments:
Post a Comment