A United States federal judge has accused President Donald Trump of attempting to manipulate the judicial process through a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ruling that the case was brought in bad faith and ordering sanctions against the lawyers involved.
In a 56-page opinion delivered on Monday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams criticised both the Trump administration and the private attorneys who filed the lawsuit, describing the legal action as an attempt to use the courts to legitimise a controversial settlement that included the creation of a now-defunct $1.8 billion “anti-weaponisation” fund.
The judge said the lawsuit also sought to justify an administration policy granting Trump and his businesses immunity from past tax-related issues.
“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote.
She further criticised the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), stating that its handling of the case departed from established departmental policies and may have violated legal requirements.
According to the judge, the government abandoned its responsibility to vigorously defend the interests of the United States by entering into a settlement that exceeded its legal authority.
“In abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States, the government entered into a settlement that deviated from its litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorised, as well as those specifically prohibited, by law,” she stated.
As part of her ruling, Williams directed that her opinion be forwarded to attorney disciplinary boards in New York and Washington, D.C., which are already reviewing ethics complaints involving Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.
She also referred one of Trump’s private attorneys to the Florida Bar for possible disciplinary proceedings and barred another lawyer who represented the president from appearing before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for one year.
The judge noted that retired judges who had challenged the settlement agreement could be entitled to reimbursement of their legal costs.
Responding to the ruling, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team defended the lawsuit, arguing that the IRS had failed to prevent the unlawful disclosure of the president’s confidential tax information.
“The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets,” the spokesperson said, adding that Trump remained committed to holding those responsible accountable.
Although the lawsuit was withdrawn months ago and the proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponisation Fund” has since been abandoned following bipartisan criticism, the ruling represents a significant judicial rebuke of the legal strategy adopted by Trump’s team.
The opinion is also expected to draw renewed scrutiny to Acting Attorney General Blanche ahead of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Williams stressed that while the president exercises broad executive authority, he remains subject to the same legal standards as every other litigant.
“The president may be the functional ‘dominus litis’ of the executive branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules,” she wrote.
Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department in January, alleging that federal agencies failed to prevent the leak of his tax records to media organisations between 2018 and 2020.
In May, the administration announced a settlement that included the establishment of a compensation fund for individuals who claimed they had been unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system. However, the proposal was later shelved amid widespread political opposition, although the administration has indicated it intends to pursue a separate provision aimed at shielding Trump and his family from future tax audits.
Judge Williams had expressed scepticism about the case from the outset and appointed independent attorneys to examine whether Trump’s position as sitting president created a conflict of interest in suing federal agencies under his own administration.
