now of course, I think this means that the lawsuit is back on, but the whole point of the settlement I think was because he knew the lawsuit would never survive a judge…
Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that Trump and the IRS, which he oversees as president, were not truly adverse to each other as is required in civil lawsuits under the U.S. Constitution. Williams referred a Trump lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on the settlement to state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.
“This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute,” Williams wrote. The judge said it was instead an attempt 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’ order bars any of the parties in the case, including Trump, his adult sons and his namesake company, from referring to the settlement or citing any of its terms in future legal proceedings, a move that could nullify the portion of the agreement barring the IRS from pursuing any audits into past tax claims involving Trump or his businesses.
This is the minimum amount we should expect from the rule of law, but I’ll take whatever wins we can get. Good for this judge for stating the obvious, which apparently only heroes have the courage to do in 2026.
The movement of her hands triggers me.
now of course, I think this means that the lawsuit is back on,
The lawsuit now has a formal judicial finding that it is not a case or controversy. Under the constitution, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over this so-called “lawsuit”.
Nothing can happen with this lawsuit unless that finding is reversed.
Courts usually don’t reverse findings of fact do they? I mean, who knows with this SCOTUS, they’re bought and paid for…
The plaintiffs are always welcome to motion to reconsider. That usually doesn’t work.
They can also appeal to the appeals court. Once there the fact findings need “clear error” to be reversed. But this decision also interprets the law… The meanings of “case” and “controversy” in this context. The legal interpretations are reviewed “de novo,” meaning starting fresh all over again.
My guess is there’s a lot of room for higher courts to reverse some parts of this decision. It’s one thing for the court to decline to enforce the “settlement.”. And it’s another thing for the court to take positive steps to stop the “settlement” from being implemented.
Among other things, the order claims to enjoin Donald Trump personally from calling the settlement “agreement” a “settlement.” That could be a violation of his free speech rights, perhaps. Or it could be an impermissible injunction against a sitting President (i.e. if this “lawsuit” gets twisted from personal business into an “official act”).
A big problem with the “agreement” if the “lawsuit” stays dead is that Trump doesn’t give up anything else to get all these benefits besides dropping the “lawsuit.” In contract law there has to be a consideration from both sides. That’s why you sometimes see property being sold for $1 instead of being given away. That could be a hook for a future DOJ to get rid of their side of the agreement.
If any of the cultist actually cared about government overreach, or tax payer protection, this would be what they would riot over.
I think the whole purpose of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was to buy their silence on the rest of it.
Rule 1 says to use the original article title.
“U.S. judge voids Trump’s settlement with IRS, refers lawyers for discipline”
If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
Fixed it, best of both worlds. :)
