Ex-Judges Seek to Reopen $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Settlement, Alleging Fraud on the Court
A coalition of 35 former federal judges filed a motion Wednesday urging a U.S. district court to vacate the dismissal of a legal dispute between President Trump and the federal government, claiming the settlement that created a controversial $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” may have been obtained through deception.
The filing marks the latest escalation in a growing controversy over the deal, which the Justice Department announced last week to resolve a lawsuit in which Trump accused the Internal Revenue Service of leaking his tax returns. At the heart of the settlement is a multi-billion-dollar fund designed to compensate individuals alleging they were victimized by government “weaponization,” alongside a promise from the IRS not to pursue any further claims against the president based on his prior tax filings.
The retired judges — including prominent conservative jurist J. Michael Luttig, a frequent Trump critic, and former U.S. District Judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin — argued that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams was misled when she approved the case’s dismissal. They contend that the settlement was not the result of arm’s-length negotiations but rather a collusive arrangement designed to avoid judicial scrutiny.
“The parties here dismissed this case before the Court could complete its inquiry into whether there was an actual case or controversy, and then cited their ‘settlement’ of this case as the legal justification for looting the federal treasury of $1.776 billion,” the former judges wrote in Wednesday’s filing.
Judge Williams had previously signaled in December that she intended to examine whether the lawsuit between Trump and his own administration met the constitutional requirement of a genuine “case or controversy.” However, before she could fully probe that question, lawyers for both sides requested dismissal — a request she granted the same day the settlement was announced.
The retired judges now argue that Williams has the authority to set aside a judgment obtained through fraud, and they are calling on her to reopen the case to investigate whether the court was deceived. They also point to Williams’ own order closing the case, which stated “there is no settlement of record,” as evidence that she may have been kept in the dark about the deal’s true nature.
The motion adds fuel to a fire that has been burning for more than a week since the deal was unveiled. Congressional Democrats have denounced the fund as a “slush fund” that could funnel money to Trump allies and loyalists. Meanwhile, a growing number of Republicans have privately and publicly expressed unease, particularly over the possibility that the fund could be used to pay out individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot who were later pardoned by Trump last year.
The Justice Department has defended the fund, insisting that there are no partisan eligibility requirements and that all decisions will be made by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the retired judges’ motion when reached by CBS News.
Legal analysts say the case raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of executive power and the independence of the judiciary. If the settlement stands, it could set a precedent for future administrations to resolve disputes with themselves through financial instruments that bypass congressional oversight.
The motion is now before Judge Williams, who must decide whether to reopen the case and begin an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the settlement.