admin
The latest legal fireworks in the Trump v. IRS saga landed this week when 35 former federal judges asked U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. They say the Department of Justice’s surprise settlement — the so‑called Anti‑Weaponization Fund of $1.776 billion — may be a collusive, fraudulent deal that was hidden from the court. Even Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, called the arrangement “collusive” and a “fraud on the country.”
What the former judges are asking the court to do
The retired judges filed a Rule 60 motion saying the sudden voluntary dismissal, followed by the DOJ’s public announcement of the Anti‑Weaponization Fund, looks like a bait‑and‑switch. Their basic claim: the dismissal did not mention any settlement on the record, and the Fund showed up the same day — which could mean the parties deceived the court. They want Judge Williams to set aside the dismissal, reopen the case, and investigate whether the settlement was the product of collusion or a fraud on the court.
Why this is about rule of law and taxpayers’ money
Call it what it is: a $1.776 billion fund that the DOJ says will compensate people who claim they were hurt by government “weaponization.” That’s a lot of taxpayer cash to hand over through a shadowy process with an addendum that, critics say, even shields the president and his family from some IRS enforcement. Whether you like President Trump or not, handing out nearly two billion dollars without a court record and without clear rules is not how the rule of law is supposed to work. If the Justice Department thought this was aboveboard, it should have put the deal in front of the judge, plain and simple.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s defense rings hollow
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tried to explain and defend the Anti‑Weaponization Fund, but vague assurances won’t cut it. Saying people won’t be categorically barred from applying is not the same as providing clear eligibility rules or legal authority. The addendum’s language about blocking enforcement actions raised real alarm bells. The former judges — a bipartisan group, mind you — are not running some partisan stunt. They are saying: open the record, show us the deal documents, and explain why the court was not told what was happening.
Judge Williams should reopen the case and get answers
There are legal hurdles to reopening a dismissal, and Rule 60 is rarely used that way. But when the judge herself had been preparing to probe whether the case presented a real “case or controversy,” a sudden dismissal and a massive, unexplained payout demand scrutiny. Judge Williams has the power to order hearings, demand documents, and, if necessary, undo the dismissal and put the settlement on the record. The American people — and the taxpayers who would ultimately foot this bill — deserve nothing less.
The political theater around this settlement won’t end with headlines. If Judge Williams reopens the case, we’ll get a clearer picture of whether this was a lawful way to address alleged “weaponization,” or a backroom deal that used the Justice Department to write a taxpayer-funded IOU. Either way, transparency and accountability should be the winners here — not secret settlements and shadowy slush funds.
