Fighting Back

May 30, 2026

It’s not surprising that lawsuits are being filed against Trump’s “settlement” with the IRS and especially against the “anti‑weaponization fund.” I’m happy and hopeful, even if some legal experts caution that it may be difficult for the plaintiffs to show that they have standing—that they have actually suffered some kind of harm or loss.

The judge in one lawsuit issued an order that at least temporarily blocks creation of the fund, transfer of money into or out of it, and consideration of claims submitted to it. A hearing will be held on June 12.

My favorite challenge to the settlement and the fund, though, is not a lawsuit, but a Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order, filed by 35 retired federal judges. (You really need to read it; it’s lovely.) They ask the judge who closed the original lawsuit to reopen it. They assert that she is allowed to do so under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, which says that the court may set aside a judgment if there is reason to believe that fraud has been perpetrated on the court.

Fraud on the Court. The judges contend that in filing the notice of dismissal of the original lawsuit, with no mention of a settlement, and then announcing a settlement of the same lawsuit after the judge issued an order to close the case, the parties deceived the court. The judges write:
“Despite Plaintiffs not having mentioned any settlement in their Notice, the Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) publicly announced a ‘settlement’ of this action shortly after Plaintiffs filed their dismissal. That ‘settlement’ commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the United States Treasury, to be handed out to recipients chosen by a commission effectively controlled by the President.” (“commandeers the contrived sum”—there’s some fine wordsmithery)

And furthermore: “the parties’ hurried dismissal of this case, carried out to enact the unprecedented ‘settlement’ before the Court could answer the critical ‘outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed,’ itself constitutes a fraud on the Court and on this proceeding, and thus should be set aside.”

What I like about this Motion compared to the lawsuits is that it doesn’t require a third party to show harm or loss. It justifies the court’s reopening of the original suit on suspicion of fraud on the court itself. Reopening the original suit would also “preserve the status quo,” the judges say. This effectively puts execution of the settlement and the fund on hold until the case-controversy-adversary question
is decided.
“A settlement premised on a dismissal that has been voided is not ‘final.’ Similarly, voiding the Notice and reopening the case would allow the Court to continue its jurisdictional inquiry. And, if the Court ultimately concludes that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case on those grounds, such a dismissal would deprive the parties of their claimed justification for the settlement.

To be clear, the parties’ settlement was not, and never will be, legally justified. That is because the Acting Attorney General’s Order creating the Anti‑Weaponization Fund identified the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304, and the Attorney General’s authority to enter ‘compromise settlements’ under 28 U.S.C. § 2414, as the basis for the creation of the Anti‑Weaponization Fund. Both of those authorities require the existence of a legitimate litigation and not, as here, one that is collusive, feigned, or fraudulent.”

Wowee wow wow.

So we have 1) a notice of dismissal filed with the court, plus 2) a settlement concocted outside of the court (and likely illegal under United States Code), 3) for the purpose of stopping the court’s inquiry into the case-controversy question (the judges assert that there is no adversarial relationship). For the 35 judges, this adds up to collusion, fraud on the court, and corruption of the justice system.

The Motion was filed on Wednesday, May 27. On Friday, May 29, the judge in the original lawsuit ordered the plaintiffs to file a response to allegations in the Motion, “including (1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the ‘victim of a fraud.’” The judge justified the order by citing Rule 11 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, which addresses, in paragraph (b), representations made to the court and, in paragraph (c), sanctions for violating 11(b). The plaintiffs’ response is due on or before June 12, 2026. The 35 judges then “may, if they choose, file a reply on or before June 19, 2026.”

Oh, my oh my oh my! This makes me so happy and hopeful. It will be interesting to see how team Trump responds. They may have anticipated lawsuits, but I bet they didn’t see those 35 judges coming. Here come the judge. Here come the judge. Here come the judge. Here come the judge . . .


Judge’s order to block fund:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.596617/gov.uscourts.vaed.596617.31.0.pdf

Motion for Relief:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72207870/63/trump-v-internal-revenue-service/

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure-dec-1-2024_0.pdf

Judge’s order to respond to Motion:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.65.0_1.pdf