Ex-federal judges urge ‘fraud’ probe of Trump IRS settlement

A group of more than 30 former federal judges are urging a sitting U.S. jurist in Florida to investigate whether the $1.8 billion agreement reached by the Trump administration to resolve the president’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was “a fraud on the court.” 

Processing Content

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams had closed President Donald Trump’s case earlier this month after his personal attorneys withdrew the lawsuit, which sought to hold the IRS liable for a past leak of his tax information. The Justice Department separately announced at the time that it had agreed to launch a billion-dollar “anti-weaponization” fund to settle the matter, but didn’t present that agreement to the judge.

In a court filing on Wednesday, the former judges — a mix of Republican and Democratic appointees — asked Williams to let them participate in the case and for her to undo the dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit and reopen the proceedings. They’re arguing that the judge has authority under federal court rules to review a final judgment and to probe “whether the court was deceived.”

“The purported ‘settlement’ that the parties never placed before this court 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,” lawyers for the judges wrote.

Trump’s legal team released a statement saying that he “is entering into this settlement squarely for the benefit of the American people, and he will continue his fight to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”

A spokesperson for the Justice Department said in a statement there’s nothing improper about the agreement and called the judges’ filing “frivolous.”

“It is a routine move for plaintiffs to dismiss cases without referencing any settlement,” according to the statement.

Besides the fund, the agreement between Trump and his administration also included a provision that bars the IRS from continuing probes into his past tax returns.

Federal judges typically have little discretion to object when a party drops a lawsuit, especially at an early stage, as was the case in Trump’s lawsuit. Trump filed the complaint in January, represented by private counsel. The government hadn’t responded yet to the claims.

The former judges said in the latest filing that the situation in Trump’s case presents “extraordinary circumstances” that would permit outside parties to raise a fraud allegation.

Williams already had launched an inquiry into the validity of Trump’s lawsuit when the settlement was announced, expressing concern about the fact that he appeared to control both sides. Federal courts have jurisdiction over “adversarial” cases that involve a live “case” or “controversy.”

Critics of the fund agreement have blasted it as a “slush fund” to benefit Trump loyalists and allies. The administration has faced rare pushback from some Republicans in Congress as well. The Justice Department has said that payments won’t be based on partisan affiliations, but cited policies and actions under the Biden administration as examples of alleged government weaponization the fund was designed to address.

The case is Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, 26-cv-20609, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).