Six Lawyers Challenge Trump's $10 Billion IRS Suit as Judge Probes Whether Sides Are Truly Adverse
Updated
Updated · POLITICO · May 18
Six Lawyers Challenge Trump's $10 Billion IRS Suit as Judge Probes Whether Sides Are Truly Adverse
8 articles · Updated · POLITICO · May 18
Six outside lawyers told U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams that Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS may lack the genuine conflict required for federal court because, as president, he can control the agencies defending the case.
Their filing said Article III bars suits where one party is effectively on both sides, citing Trump’s practical authority over the IRS and Justice Department and DOJ guidance that government lawyers follow the president’s priorities.
The challenge lands just before a hearing this month and as reports say Trump and the government are nearing a settlement that could include a $1.776 billion compensation fund if he drops the case.
That prospect has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and former tax officials, while also increasing pressure to resolve a case tied to the leak of Trump’s returns by Charles Littlejohn, now serving a 5-year sentence.
Can a presidential lawsuit lead to a $1.7 billion fund controlled by the executive?
What are the constitutional limits when the head of state sues their own government?
How can justice be served when one person effectively controls both sides of a lawsuit?
Trump’s $1.8 Billion Settlement Fund: Constitutional, Ethical, and Legal Controversies Over Executive Self-Dealing
Overview
President Donald Trump withdrew his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move that led to the creation of a $1.8 billion compensation fund. This fund aims to compensate people who believe they were unfairly investigated during previous administrations. The lawsuit, filed by Trump and his family, accused the IRS of leaking tax returns. By dismissing the case 'with prejudice,' Trump cannot refile it, effectively bypassing further court scrutiny. The fund’s purpose and the way the lawsuit ended highlight concerns about transparency, executive power, and the potential for political self-benefit.