Judge Lets Challenge to DOJ's $1.8 Billion Fund Proceed as Agency Refuses Written Retraction

Q: Why is a verbal promise to cancel a $1.8B fund not enough for a federal judge?

A verbal promise was not enough because, in federal court, mootness requires a reliable, enforceable showing that the challenged government action has actually ended and will not resume. Judge Leonie Brinkema said a short written declaration under penalty of perjury would likely have sufficed. The Justice Department refused to provide one. That mattered because the fund was created through a formal written memo and involved up to $1.776 billion in potential payouts. A judge typically expects a formal written rescission or sworn statement to match a formal written action of that scale. Verbal assurances, even from a senior official, are easier to reverse, harder to enforce, and leave less of a legal record if the government later changes course. Brinkema also pointed to reasons not to treat the issue as settled. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said publicly that the fund was “not going forward,” but he would not rescind the May 18 memo in writing. At the same time, he acknowledged the idea remained “important,” and President Trump had continued to support it. In the judge’s view, that combination made the government’s position too uncertain to end the case. The practical issue is accountability. A sworn written declaration carries legal consequences if false and gives the court a concrete basis to dismiss the suit. Without that, Brinkema found the plaintiffs’ challenge was still live, so the lawsuit and the temporary block on the fund could continue.

3 articles · Updated · CNBC · Jun 25

Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled the lawsuit over the DOJ's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund is not moot and ordered the department to answer by July 17.
A written declaration under penalty of perjury would have been enough to end the case, she said, but DOJ refused to confirm on paper that the fund is dead.
Brinkema pointed to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's refusal to rescind his May 18 memo and to Trump's continued support for compensating alleged victims of DOJ overreach.
Blanche had told Congress on June 2 that the fund was "not going forward, period," after bipartisan criticism of what opponents called a slush fund for Trump allies, including some Jan. 6 defendants.
The fund was created in settling Trump's $10 billion IRS leak lawsuit and was structured to allow up to $1.776 billion in payouts.