A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges asked a Florida court to reopen the case involving President Donald Trump and the IRS, arguing an out-of-court settlement was an act of fraud against the court. The judges cited a May 27 filing claiming the partie
For weeks, the legal fight looked like it had ended quietly. Then a May 27 court filing landed in a federal Florida case—arguing that the deal closing it wasn’t just controversial, but potentially fraudulent.
A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges asked the court to reopen the matter between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service and investigate whether the two parties’ out-of-court settlement was an act of fraud against the court.
The judges say the motion to withdraw the lawsuit failed to mention a planned settlement. In exchange for Trump voluntarily withdrawing the case. the Justice Department last week agreed to create a much-criticized $1.766 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that could funnel payments to Trump’s political allies.
“The Court was deceived,” the 24-page motion reads. It adds that the settlement “commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the United States Treasury, to be handed out to recipients chosen by a commission effectively controlled by the President.”
Trump and co-plaintiffs had not asked the judge to rule on the substance of the dispute—because the lawsuit was withdrawn. That withdrawal also meant U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams did not weigh the merits of Trump’s claims. It also meant the judge did not evaluate the settlement reached by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Trump’s former personal attorney.
Trump’s original lawsuit began in January, when he filed against the IRS and the Treasury Department seeking $10 billion in damages over the agency’s past leak of his tax returns.
Reopening the case would be a direct challenge to how the settlement process played out in front of the court—one that the former judges say should trigger scrutiny over whether the court was misled about the underlying dispute and negotiations.
The former judges said reopening would 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 also argued the settlement was not legally justified. “To be clear. the parties’ settlement was not. and never will be. legally justified. ” the motion reads. saying Blanche wrongfully invoked the AG’s authorities to award judgments and compromise settlements when he created the anti-weaponization fund.
The motion says those authorities require the existence of a legitimate litigation and not, “as here, one that is collusive, feigned, or fraudulent.”
Under the agreement with the IRS, the tax agency also would no longer pursue any claims over tax liabilities it may have against Trump, his family members, and his companies.
Among the judges who filed the motion is former U.S. District Court Judge Michael Luttig. A prominent conservative jurist, Luttig was one of the star witnesses of the House January 6 Select Committee hearings.
None of the ex-judges are parties in the case, but they cited a federal rule of civil procedure that allows a court to set aside a judgment over fraud against the court.
Support and controversy swirl around the fund’s design
The former judges’ request comes amid intense bipartisan criticism of the anti-weaponization fund and its lack of guardrails over how money would be distributed.
Blanche has said anyone is welcome to apply for compensation. But the fund was conceived to pay individuals whom Trump and others say were unfairly targeted by prosecutors in past Democratic administrations.
Blanche and other administration officials have not ruled out sending checks to the nearly 1,600 Trump supporters who violently stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That includes people convicted of assaulting police officers.
A five-person committee, with each member appointed by Blanche, will be in charge of deciding which complainants are rewarded money from the fund, according to the Justice Department.
The backlash has also sparked litigation. Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack sued the Trump administration to block the anti-weaponization fund.
Trump has defended the fund amid the pushback, writing last week on Truth Social that he is “helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”
The tension now is whether a Florida federal court will treat the filing as more than political noise—and reopen a case that ended without a merits decision, at the center of a dispute over what the court was told, and what it wasn’t.
Trump IRS settlement anti-weaponization fund Kathleen Williams Todd Blanche Michael Luttig fraud against the court federal judges Truth Social Justice Department January 6 supporters