Thirty-five former federal judges have petitioned a Florida federal court to reopen President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department, alleging that the settlement was never before the court and constitutes a fraud on judicial process.
The judges state that Trump and his administration used the litigation as cover for a prearranged political transaction. This arrangement created a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund without lawful authority and bundled it with a sweeping release of potential federal claims against Trump, his family, businesses, and related entities.
“The Court was deceived,” the judges wrote in their motion filed Wednesday.
The motion seeks Judge Kathleen Williams to set aside the dismissal of Trump’s case and examine whether the lawsuit represented genuine litigation or merely a vehicle for political settlement.
Trump initiated the lawsuit in January 2024, alleging his IRS failed to protect private tax information after former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn accessed and leaked records between 2018 and 2020 during Trump’s first term. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison in January 2024 for unlawfully accessing confidential tax data.
Trump sought $10 billion, with his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, along with the Trump Organization, joining the case. In February, Treasury Secretary and acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent confirmed that if Trump won, settlement funds would come from general Treasury appropriations—effectively shifting costs to taxpayers.
On May 18, Trump voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, ending it permanently. The dismissal notice contained no mention of a settlement or court approval. Days later, the Justice Department announced the case was settled under an agreement involving Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. This deal created the Anti-Weaponization Fund and included a formal apology without monetary damages for Trump.
The following day, the department issued a sweeping addendum purporting to release “any and all claims” against Trump and his associates, including matters before the IRS or other agencies.
The judges emphasize this is not an ordinary settlement but an alleged abuse of judicial process. They argue that Trump’s dismissal prior to court review—followed by the Justice Department’s announcement of a settlement and release—corrupted the legal process. The motion states: “The parties used the proceeding as a legal pretext while trying to deprive the court of the chance to determine whether the litigation was real.”
They assert federal courts can only adjudicate genuine cases or controversies. A lawsuit cannot serve as a manufactured vehicle for executive action, public spending, or private legal protection. The judges further contend the Anti-Weaponization Fund has no lawful foundation because the administration cannot use the Judgment Fund without a legitimate claim against the United States. They write: “The parties’ settlement was not, and never will be, legally justified.”
Additionally, the Justice Department’s addendum grants extraordinary protections that extend beyond Trump’s IRS privacy claim, including immunity from future federal claims. The judges argue these benefits were provided without meaningful consideration.
To address these concerns, the former judges request Judge Williams to reopen the case under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—a mechanism for setting aside judgments in cases involving fraud or misconduct. They contend that even if the filing is not treated as a direct Rule 60 motion, federal courts have inherent authority to investigate alleged fraud on their proceedings.
The motion seeks only temporary reopening to examine what occurred, not immediate resolution. The judges frame this as a critical question: Can a president sue his own government, settle with his Justice Department, keep the settlement secret from the court, and then use it to divert public funds while shielding his family and businesses from federal claims? They maintain that only a court—not the administration—can determine whether such actions have occurred.
