Thirty-five former federal judges asked a Miami federal court on Wednesday to reopen President Trump's recently dismissed $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that the $1.776 billion settlement that closed the case may itself be a fraud on the court and should be set aside.
The filing, addressed to U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, escalates a week-old fight over the Justice Department's Anti-Weaponization Fund, the payout vehicle disclosed May 18 alongside Trump's abrupt dismissal of his suit. It follows a separate complaint last Wednesday by two Capitol Police officers seeking to block the fund and a Senate GOP revolt that stalled a $70 billion immigration enforcement bill. The ex-judges are now asking the court that signed off on the dismissal to reverse course and examine whether it was misled.
What the judges filed
The retired jurists, who include former appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, a well-known conservative jurist who has been critical of Trump, and former district judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin, invoked Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to vacate a judgment procured by fraud. They asked Williams to "set aside the judgment in this lawsuit" so she can investigate "whether a fraud occurred," or, alternatively, to reopen the case on her own initiative.
"The Court was deceived," the ex-judges wrote, noting that the May 18 dismissal notice from Trump's lawyers made no mention of a settlement and that the Justice Department announced the $1.776 billion fund hours later. The settlement, they argued, "raises profound questions about the parties' candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice."
The filing calls the deal a "product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court," and says the parties "cited their 'settlement' of this case as the legal justification for looting the federal treasury of $1.776 billion."
The underlying case
Trump, his two eldest sons and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and the Treasury Department over leaks of the family's tax information by an ex-IRS employee in 2019 and 2020. Williams had signaled last month that she planned to scrutinize whether the suit presented an actual "case or controversy" between adverse parties, as the Constitution requires, given that the plaintiff and defendants both answer to the same administration.
Before she completed that inquiry, the plaintiffs and the government jointly moved to dismiss. Williams granted the request with prejudice on May 18 and noted in her order that the plaintiffs had referenced no settlement and the defendants had submitted no settlement documents. The Justice Department announced the Anti-Weaponization Fund the same day. A day later, the department disclosed an addendum that effectively shields the plaintiffs and certain affiliates from any IRS enforcement on past returns.
DOJ position
The Justice Department has defended the fund as a lawful settlement meant to compensate alleged victims of government weaponization, telling CBS News that there are no partisan requirements to apply and that grants will be decided by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general. Department lawyers have maintained that the dismissal was the parties' to make and that the addendum is a routine settlement term. The White House referred CNBC to the Justice Department, which did not respond to a request for comment on the ex-judges' filing. The IRS and the Trump Organization also did not comment by press time.
The politics around it
Congressional Democrats have called the fund a "slush fund" that could be steered to Trump allies, and a growing number of Republicans have raised concerns, including over whether payouts could reach Jan. 6 defendants the president pardoned last year. Senate Majority Leader John Thune pushed a vote on the stalled immigration enforcement package to the week of June 1 after a closed-door meeting with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche failed to quiet the caucus.
Williams has not set a hearing on the ex-judges' motion. Under Rule 60, she can act on her own at any time; the fund itself remains operational while the Capitol Police suit in Washington and Wednesday's Miami filing proceed on parallel tracks.