Former judges urge court to reopen Trump tax case over settlement

Thirty-five former federal judges asked a Miami court to reopen Donald Trump’s dismissed tax case, saying the sudden creation of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” may have involved a fraud on the court and raised a deeper separation-of-powers problem.

The filing landed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Judge Kathleen Williams had already dismissed Trump’s case with prejudice on May 18 after Trump voluntarily dropped it. The underlying lawsuit, brought by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization, sought $10 billion from the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department over the leak of Trump tax information in 2019 and 2020 by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who was later sentenced to five years in prison.

The judges said the court was never told about any settlement before the dismissal. They argued that the parties’ public announcement of a deal only after the case had been closed raised questions about candor to the court and about whether the dismissal had been secured without full disclosure. They asked Williams to reopen the case under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so she can determine whether the court was deceived.

At the center of the dispute is how the fund works. The Justice Department announced it on May 18, saying the money would come from the federal judgment fund and be overseen by a five-person commission appointed by the attorney general. The department said the fund would hear claims from people who say they suffered “weaponization” or “lawfare,” would not impose partisan requirements, would stop taking claims no later than December 1, 2028, and would return any leftover money to the federal government when it closed. DOJ also said Trump would receive no money from the fund and had agreed to dismiss his IRS case with prejudice and withdraw two administrative claims tied to the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia-collusion investigation.

The former judges, including J. Michael Luttig, said that structure demanded judicial scrutiny because the settlement was never placed before the court before dismissal. Critics have described the arrangement as a taxpayer-funded or unconstitutional “slush fund,” while House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force and outside watchdogs moved to challenge it. The department said the model drew in part on the Obama-era Keepseagle settlement, but the controversy now centers on who controls the money, who qualifies for it, and whether the executive branch can create a compensation system this large without Congress.

CBC reported bipartisan unease, including concern from some Republicans who met with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for more information. For the judges pressing Williams to reopen the case, the issue is no longer just another Trump fight. It is whether a settlement tied to a president can reshape how federal money is distributed, and whether the court was asked to accept a deal it never got to see.