Judges push back on Trump’s $10 billion IRS lawsuit authority

Judges and opposing counsel have moved to constrain a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump seeking roughly $10 billion in damages against the Internal Revenue Service, a fragmentary report described as “one of the largest civil claims in recent memory.” The contested case sits alongside a flurry of appellate actions that are limiting immediate presidential removals and centralizing challenges to executive orders aimed at law firms.

A divided D.C. Circuit panel voted 2-1 to deny the president’s bid to immediately remove Hampton Dellinger from a post overseeing enforcement of workplace protections for federal employees. The majority warned that lifting a temporary restraining order at this stage “was certain to lead to ‘a deluge’ of similar requests in other cases,” signaling caution about upending lower‑court rulings while related litigation proceeds.

Judge Katsas, dissenting, framed the stakes in sweeping terms and called for prompt appellate review. “The extraordinary character of the order at issue here, which directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed, warrants immediate appellate review,” Katsas wrote, underscoring a competing view that the court should resolve questions about the reach of presidential authority without delay.

At the same time, the D.C. Circuit on Feb. 6, 2026 consolidated five separate appeals challenging executive orders directed at law firms and lawyers under a lead docket, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, Case No. 26-5009. The court folded Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, Case No. 25-5241; Jenner & Block LLP v. Department of Justice, Case No. 25-5265; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President, Case No. 25-5277; and Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, Case No. 25-5310 into the consolidated proceeding. The cases “will proceed under Zaid v. Executive Office of the President,” the consolidation order states.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated matters have framed broad constitutional objections. One March 28 complaint alleges the executive action “violates the First Amendment’s protections against retaliation for protected expression, prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, right to petition the government, and freedom of association;” that it “exceeds the President’s authority and interferes with federal courts’ Article III powers;” and that it “violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses,” as well as “the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel” and Article I. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and other remedies, and have warned that the executive measures could lead to “review; terminating the firm’s government contracts to the extent permitted by law; and limiting employees’ access to federal buildings.”

Taken together, the filings and appellate rulings reveal courts grappling with overlapping questions about separation of powers, administrative authority, and the reach of presidential directives into the civil legal sector. For law firms and corporate clients that rely on government contracts and access to federal institutions, the consolidated appeals could determine immediate business risks. For the executive branch, the D.C. Circuit’s restraint signals judicial reluctance to allow rapid reversals of lower‑court protections that preserve the status quo during appeals.

Several key pieces of primary material remain incomplete or sealed in public summaries, including full filings in the $10 billion suit and the underlying orders now under appeal. Until those records are obtained, the scope of judicial constraints and the precise legal theories at issue will remain subject to refinement as the consolidated appeals proceed.