“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn't go anywhere,” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said as she kept an indefinite block on the administration's effort to put in place a $1.8 billion settlement fund. The fund was created as part of a settlement resolving former President Donald Trump’s $10 billion suit against the Internal Revenue Service and has drawn allegations that it was a collusive attempt to divert taxpayer money to compensate alleged victims of political weaponization. The Justice Department told Congress Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had said the administration wouldn't proceed, but Brinkema and other judges have pressed for sworn declarations and clarity on whether the May 18 order establishing the fund was formally rescinded. Lawyers for a group of 35 former federal judges have moved to reopen review, saying the lawsuit was manufactured to create the fund; they were set to reply by June 19.

“Based on these bare-bones assertions, they ask the court to wrongly conclude that the entire case was a sham,” Trump’s lawyers wrote, denying that the president and Justice Department colluded to create what critics have called an "anti-weaponization" slush fund.

Court split leaves settlement in limbo

Judge Brinkema in Virginia extended an injunction after government attorneys argued the case was moot because Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had told Congress the administration wouldn't proceed with the $1.8 billion program. Brinkema nonetheless required officials, including Blanche, to submit a sworn declaration that the fund won't be revived and said the record contains gaps about whether the May 18 order establishing the program was formally rescinded.

That reading was not universal. In Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Richard Leon accepted the Justice Department's representation that the issue is moot. The contradictory rulings have left the settlement's status uncertain and prompted parallel legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions.

The fund stems from a settlement that resolved Mr. Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiffs and critics say the money would compensate alleged victims of political "weaponization" and that the settlement was engineered rather than the product of a genuine adversarial dispute. A motion from 35 former federal judges accuses Mr. Trump and Justice Department officials of using a collusive lawsuit against an agency Mr. Trump once controlled to manufacture the fund.

Legal maneuvers and possible remedies

Brinkema gave the parties one week to try to negotiate an agreement, but she also left open the possibility of reopening judicial review. If a judge does reopen the case, filings say, the court could require testimony in open court from Mr. Trump's lawyers, aides and Justice Department attorneys.

Mastheads

The filings add that the court could assess financial or professional sanctions if it finds misconduct.

In Miami, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered Mr. Trump to respond to the former judges' motion and considered whether to reopen review because of the allegations of collusion. Plaintiffs in Virginia and other venues have pressed ahead with litigation to block any implementation, arguing that a public assurance to Congress isn't the same as a formal rescission of the May 18 order.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress earlier in June that the administration wouldn't move forward with the fund after bipartisan uproar. Lawmakers from both parties expressed concern that funds could be paid to Trump allies and supporters, prompting the administration to publicly back away from implementation. Still, plaintiffs pointed out that a congressional statement doesn't erase the underlying order, and Brinkema said government counsel couldn't provide a "concrete answer" about whether Blanche had formally withdrawn the May 18 order.

The Justice Department has argued that settling claims without full litigation is routine and that the $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS was not a fraud on the court. Trump’s lawyers echoed that defense in their filing, rejecting the contention that the entire case was a sham and denying collusion between the president and Justice Department to manufacture the fund.

The dispute has already spilled into congressional politics. Senate Republicans delayed a vote on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding bill amid objections tied to the proposed $1.8 billion settlement program, illustrating how the litigation has affected legislative timelines even as courts consider procedural and jurisdictional questions.

Court dockets show that judges have continued to solicit sworn statements and written submissions from Justice Department officials about the status of the May 18 order and the proposed compensation program. The competing judicial decisions and the motion from the group of former judges have created a rare alignment of procedural review and public scrutiny.

On the legal calendar, the motion from the 35 former federal judges presses a stark allegation: that the underlying civil action was not a real controversy but a contrivance designed to produce a settlement fund. Their lawyers were set to respond to Mr. Trump's filing by June 19, and courts have signaled they won't accept conclusory public assertions in place of formal, sworn rescission documents.

Related Articles

Lawyers for the 35 former judges were set to respond by June 19, and judges have signaled they will press for sworn declarations and could reopen the case, subpoena testimony or seek sanctions if they find collusion. Originally reported by business-standard.com.

This article was created with AI assistance.