President Donald Trump, right, walks along the North Portico of the White House on Saturday, July 11, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein).
A federal judge ruled Monday that President Donald Trump’s personal attorneys and senior lawyers inside his administration participated in what she described as a “non-adversarial, collusive” lawsuit aimed at pressuring the IRS into a $1.776 billion “settlement” that she said “had no viable basis in law or fact.” One lawyer’s conduct, the judge added, warranted a referral to the Florida Bar for possible disciplinary action.
In late May, a group of 35 former federal judges urged U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to “reopen” the civil case Trump had filed against the IRS. Trump sought to voluntarily dismiss the matter as Williams — an appointee of former President Barack Obama who has also handled litigation tied to the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention facility — appeared poised to determine that no genuine case or controversy existed.
Williams concluded that Trump and the federal government he now leads were effectively aligned in the dispute, particularly over the proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended for the president’s allies and tax-investigation protections for members of his family.
In her Monday order, Williams wrote that it was “risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties.” She said the case was clearly filed for an “improper purpose,” drawing a comparison to Trump’s unsuccessful, “frivolous” and expensive RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.
“The Parties here are not private actors to a mine-run dispute, recounting their proficiency in the art of the deal they negotiated. Lead Plaintiff and Defendants are public servants—the pinnacle of the Executive Branch—sworn to uphold the law, faithfully perform the duties of their office, and protect the interests of the American public. The issue before the Court is whether, instead, they ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process. The issue is whether they did so to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the public fisc with the patina of legitimacy,” the judge wrote.
Williams said the Justice Department’s months of silence on the docket was especially telling. Under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, DOJ “never appeared, never challenged Plaintiffs’ claims, and never filed a single pleading,” despite the availability of multiple possible defenses.
“And while it is true that President Trump had a legal right to bring a suit for the unlawful disclosure, any remedy would be circumscribed by the legal guardrails applicable to all litigants: the statute of limitations, naming the appropriate defendant, and pleading special recoverable damages. Notably, had President Trump (and his then-lawyers Alina Habba and Todd Blanche) brought this lawsuit in a timely fashion while he was a private citizen, this litigation understandably might have been resolved in a 109-day time span,” Williams wrote. “But that is not what happened. Instead, President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ to prominent positions in the DOJ. These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House Counsel to reach a ‘settlement.’”
Williams’ order arrives at a pivotal moment as Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general is at stake this week. The judge ordered the clerk to mail a copy of the order to the State Bar of New York, where Blanche faces an ethics investigation. She ordered the same in Washington, D.C., for Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, a former Mar-a-Lago case lawyer like Blanche and also a defense attorney for Jan. 6 defendants; both lawyers signed the “settlement” agreement.
“Ultimately, the DOJ has endeavored to justify its position to create the appearance of a case or controversy ‘resolved’ under the aegis of the Court. But the Parties, most of whom are government actors, did not engage in any public discussion or judicial review regarding their ‘unusual’ arrangement and whether they were legally adverse; indeed, they actively avoided such an undertaking,” Williams said, before turning her attention to Trump’s private lawyers Alejandro Brito and Daniel Z. Epstein.
Brito, already representing Trump in defamation lawsuits against the BBC, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal in Florida, was referred to the Florida Bar as a sanction.
Pointing out that million-dollar “deterrent” sanctions under Rule 11 in the Clinton RICO suit didn’t stop Trump from “cynically” using another federal lawsuit to “achieve a predetermined outcome,” the judge hit Brito where it arguably hurts an attorney the most, referring him to the bar for “its consideration, review, and determination as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the findings and rulings made in this Order.”
Law&Crime reached out to Brito for comment, but he did not immediately reply.
As for Epstein, a “former White House Senior Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020,” Williams ordered that he won’t be granted pro hac vice permission to appear in the Southern District of Florida for “one year or until further order of this Court.”
“Notably, Mr. Epstein was never counsel of record in this case; the Complaint’s signature block identified him as counsel for Plaintiffs but represented that his pro hac vice application was ‘forthcoming.’ Since no such application was filed with the Court, and since, in other matters pending in Florida and elsewhere, Mr. Epstein sought pro hac admission within weeks of filing the complaint, the Court can only surmise that Mr. Epstein was aware that he would never need to appear and litigate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims,” Williams sharply stated.
A spokesman from Trump’s legal team issued a statement saying the president “continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”
“The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people,” the statement said.
