35 Former Federal Judges Move to Block Trump’s $1.8B IRS Settlement, Citing ‘Collusion’ and ‘Fraud on the Court’

Photo: Alex Brandon/AP

A coalition of 35 former federal judges on Wednesday asked a federal court in the Southern District of Florida to reopen President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, seeking to block what they called a $1.776 billion “slush fund” created by the Department of Justice to resolve the case.

The motion targets a controversial settlement announced by the DOJ earlier this month. That deal, which the parties never formally presented to the court, established an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” designed to compensate individuals allegedly targeted for political investigations or prosecutions. The fund was meant to settle a lawsuit Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization had filed over the leak of their tax returns.

Critics have raised multiple alarms: Trump, as president, was simultaneously the plaintiff in the case and the head of the government agencies being sued. The fund purports to distribute taxpayer money without congressional approval. And some January 6 defendants who received presidential pardons — including those convicted of assaulting law enforcement — have reportedly sought to claim a share of the money.

Even some congressional Republicans have voiced unease, with several willing to criticize the fund on the record. Prominent Trump critics have also argued they should be eligible for compensation given the president’s past targeting of them.

In a 24-page motion, the former judges wrote that they were stepping forward “because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice.” They argued that the purported settlement “raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice.”

The motion invokes Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to set aside a judgment and reopen a case. Alternatively, the group asked for permission to file as amici curiae — legal “friends of the court” — a status that allows non-parties to provide specialized expertise or insight to the bench.

Citing precedent, the judges noted that “a non-party may raise a challenge of fraud on the court through Rule 60 even when the non-party’s interests are not directly affected by the judgment.” They urged the court “to exercise its authority under Rule 60 to set aside the judgment, allowing the court to resume its inquiry into whether there is an actual underlying case or controversy, or whether this ‘case’ that the parties purport to have ‘settled’ is itself a fraud on the court.”

The filing directly accuses the plaintiffs of having “deceived” the court. According to the motion, Trump’s legal team signed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal that made no mention of any settlement — only to have the DOJ announce the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” immediately afterward. The fund, the judges argue, “commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the United States Treasury, to be handed out to recipients chosen by a commission effectively controlled by the President.”

One day after revealing the fund, the DOJ further announced it had agreed to release “any and all claims…whether presently known or unknown,” a sweeping provision that covers any IRS audits of the plaintiffs’ tax returns or any other action the federal government might have against them. The judges described these as “extraordinary benefits for which no consideration was provided to the government.”

“This ‘settlement’ is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court,” the motion states, though it acknowledges that the court does not need to reach that conclusion to reopen the case. The judges point to a unanimous Supreme Court ruling last year — a decision from a bench that includes three Trump appointees, two George W. Bush appointees, and one George H.W. Bush appointee — that held that a Rule 60 review remains permissible even after a voluntary dismissal, and that the court is not deprived of jurisdiction.

The motion also argues that the court has the power to initiate sua sponte (self-initiated) action to investigate possible fraud and to set aside a judgment if such fraud is found. The judges asserted there was “clear and convincing evidence” of fraud, noting that “undisputed” the court was never informed of the settlement agreement, which was “neither announced nor publicly released until after the case had been dismissed.”

They called the arrangement a “collusive settlement” and a “corruption of the judicial process,” accusing the parties of using the lawsuit “as a means to allow a ‘commission’ controlled by the President to dole out $1.776 billion in taxpayer dollars without constitutional or congressional authority, and to confer unlawful private benefits to the President and his family by purportedly prohibiting the United States from prosecuting any and all claims against them.”

The 35 retired judges span the ideological spectrum and include several highly respected figures. The lead signatory, J. Michael Luttig, is a conservative legal heavyweight who served as an associate White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan, clerked for Antonin Scalia on the D.C. Circuit and for Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Supreme Court, and held multiple DOJ posts under President George W. Bush. He was appointed to the federal bench by Bush. In recent years, Luttig has become a prominent Trump critic: He advised then–Vice President Mike Pence that the Constitution did not allow him to reject Electoral College votes, testified before the January 6 House Select Committee, and endorsed then–Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, citing Trump’s “continued denial of that appalling day” and his “knowingly false claims.”

Full list of former judges who filed the motion:

• Judge Michael Luttig, U.S. Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Ret.)
• Judge Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts (Ret.)
• Chief Judge John W. Bissell, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey (Ret.)
• Judge Geraldine Soat Brown, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Ret.)
• Chief Judge Rubén Castillo, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Ret.)
• Chief Judge U.W. Clemon, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Alabama (Ret.)
• Judge Susan E. Cox, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Ret.)
• Judge Morton Denlow, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Ret.)
• Judge David K. Duncan, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Arizona (Ret.)
• Chief Judge Sheila Finnegan, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Ret.)
• Judge Jeremy Fogel, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California (Ret.)
• Judge James C. Francis IV, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York (Ret.)
• Judge Steven M. Gold, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of New York (Ret.)
• Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Ret.)
• Judge Paul W. Grimm, U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland (Ret.)
• Chief Judge Robert Harlan Henry, U.S. Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Ret.)
• Judge Thelton Henderson, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California (Ret.)
• Judge Richard J. Holwell, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York (Ret.)
• Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia (Ret.)
• Judge John E. Jones III, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania (Ret.)
• Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Texas (Ret.)
• Judge Roanne L. Mann, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of New York (Ret.)
• Judge A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Judge, Central District of California (Ret.)
• Chief Judge Paul Michel, U.S. Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Ret.)
• Judge Kathleen O’Malley, U.S. Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Ret.)
• Judge Brian Owsley, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of Texas (Ret.)
• Judge Philip M. Pro, U.S. District Judge, District of Nevada (Ret.)
• Judge Victoria A. Roberts, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Michigan (Ret.)
• Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York (Ret.)
• Judge Fern M. Smith, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California (Ret.)
• Judge John D. Tinder, U.S. Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Ret.)
• Judge Ursula Ungaro, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida (Ret.)
• Judge T. John Ward, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Texas (Ret.)
• Judge Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts (Ret.)

Read the full motion for relief from judgment or, in the alternative, for leave to appear as amici curiae by thirty-five former federal judges.

This story first appeared on Mediaite.