Judge Rules That Trump's IRS Immunity Deal Has No 'Basis in Law'

[lostincalifornia]

A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump’s “bad faith” lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was legally improper and barred Trump or the government from citing a controversial settlement of the case in any future regulatory or judicial proceedings.

The ruling Monday by US District Judge Kathleen Williams calls into question whether and how Trump, his family members or business interests will be able to benefit from the the president’s settlement with the Justice Department, which purported to immunize them from audits or other federal probes related to past filings.

Trump in January sued the IRS — an agency he controls — over the unauthorized leak of his tax information to the press in 2019. The suit effectively put Trump in control of both sides of the litigation, with taxpayers on the hook for any potential damages or settlement payout.

On May 18, the president agreed to drop the suit in exchange for the government creating a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, which many Democrats said would be used to enrich his allies and supporters, including Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters. That part of the settlement was abandoned by the government after a bipartisan outcry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-13/trump-irs-audit-immunity-deal-has-no-basis-in-law-judge-says

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. The Judge referred Blanche, another DOJ asshole attorney and a private attorney to the various bar associations

Referring Blanche to the bar just before his confirmation hearing makes me smile

Link to tweet

BREAKING

A federal judge NULLIFIES the purported “settlement” behind Trump’s $1.776B slush fund, finding there was never a “case or controversy” — and referring his attorney for possible professional discipline.

Doc https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.106.0.pdf

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Of course it doesn't

But nice of the courts to reflect reality.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. MaddowBlog-Judge questions whether Trump can sue his own administration for $10 billion

If the president was waiting for a payout from his IRS lawsuit, a federal judge suggested he might need to start lowering his expectations.

Judge questions whether Trump can sue his own administration for billion

www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Mike Walker (@newnarrative.bsky.social) 2026-04-27T19:11:24.754Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/judge-questions-whether-trump-can-sue-his-own-administration-for-10-billion

In response to highly dubious civil lawsuits, the Trump Justice Department has been exceedingly generous lately, agreeing to lucrative settlements with plaintiffs who are politically aligned with the White House. Whether Donald Trump will be among the beneficiaries, however, remains an open question.

A federal judge suggested late last week that the president might have to lower his expectations. Politico reported:

President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns ran into turbulence Friday as a judge ordered a hearing on whether the Constitution allows the president to sue the federal government he oversees.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has asked Trump’s private attorneys and Justice Department lawyers representing the IRS to address whether his control over the government’s actions in the case means it’s the kind of dispute federal courts cannot consider.

“Although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction,” Williams wrote in a four-page order.

“It is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement,” the judge added, referring to the Constitution.....

Shortly after his lawyers filed the case, the president told reporters that he assumed “nobody would care” if he received a lucrative payout as part of the frivolous litigation. That payout now appears in doubt. Watch this space.

We spent maybe part of one Constitutional law class on the case or controversy provision of the Constitution. This usually came up in the cases dealing with advisory opinions. Here is the relevant part of the US Constitution

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Since trump is on both sides of this silly lawsuit, there is no Case or Controversy. This opinion made me smile. I suspect that future Con law classes will be spending more time on this provision of the US Constitution.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. MaddowBlog-Judge slams Trump-IRS 'settlement,' refers attorney for possible disciplinary actions

The president probably thought his $10 billion case against the IRS was over. That was before a federal court found his lawyers acted in “bad faith.”

A federal judge set out to investigate “grievous allegations” in the Trump-IRS case.

She apparently did not like what she discovered, concluding that Trump and his lawyers acted “in bad faith” and filed a civil suit “for an improper purpose.”
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-07-13T17:37:12.625Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-irs-settlement-sanctions-lawyers-leaked-tax-returns

By now, Donald Trump has probably grown accustomed to legal setbacks in court, though his case against the IRS has started to backfire in ways the president didn’t see coming. The Associated Press reported:

A federal judge said Monday that President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose” as she referred attorneys for disciplinary actions.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams amounts to a stinging rebuke of the Republican president’s lawsuit, characterizing it as an exercise in self-dealing in which he sued an entity that is effectively under his control.

.....More than a month later, she apparently did not like what she discovered, concluding that Trump and his lawyers acted “in bad faith” and filed a civil suit “for an improper purpose.”

“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,” Williams wrote.

The judge also prohibited the parties from even referring to it as a “settlement.”

Just as notably, as CNBC reported, Williams “referred Trump’s lawyer in the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar for consideration on whether Brito should be disciplined in light of the findings in the new order.” The judge also “ordered that a copy of her ruling be mailed to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a member, as well as to the District of Columbia Bar, of which Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is a member.”

I am looking forward to Blanche's confirmation hearing. One of the questions may be to find out if a disbarred attorney can be Attorney General