Washington — A federal judge on Monday imposed
professional penalties against lawyers representing President Trump in a
civil lawsuit he brought against the IRS and harshly criticized the
Justice Department for its handling of the case, concluding that the
suit was brought for an "improper purpose."
In a scathing 56-page decision,
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams referred one of Mr. Trump's
lawyers, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary
action. The judge limited the ability of a second lawyer, Daniel
Epstein, to practice in the Southern District of Florida.
Williams
also barred the Justice Department, IRS and Mr. Trump from citing or
using provisions of a deal the two sides reached in judicial,
administrative, regulatory or other proceedings as evidence of a
settlement in the case.
The case, Williams wrote, "was brought for
an improper purpose — to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for
a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." Additionally,
the president and his two older sons, who were plaintiffs alongside Mr.
Trump, "acted in bad faith," she concluded.
"In sum, the facts
before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the
Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a
question as to who would prevail," she said.
Williams also
directed a copy of her order to be mailed to the State Bar of New York
and to the District of Columbia Bar, of which acting Attorney General
Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward are
members, respectively. Blanche and Woodward signed documents relating to the settlement with Mr. Trump.
A
spokesman for Mr. Trump's legal team said in response to the decision,
"The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak
private and confidential information about President Trump, his family,
and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other
left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of
people. President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and
Americans accountable."
Williams' extraordinary order came in response to concerns raised by a group of 35 former judges about the settlement agreement reached in May. The deal brought to an end the $10 billion civil lawsuit
the president and his two oldest sons filed against the IRS earlier
this year over the leak of Mr. Trump's tax returns by a government
contractor.
The settlement initially included the creation of a
$1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund that aimed to provide
taxpayer-funded payouts to individuals who alleged the federal
government had been "weaponized" against them. But after immense blowback from Congress and a federal judge's ruling, Blanche said the Justice Department was "not moving forward" with the program.
Another provision of the settlement that permanently bars the IRS from pursuing tax claims against Mr. Trump, his oldest sons, his company or affiliated companies of his family remains intact.
The
former judges asked Williams in May to reopen the case between Mr.
Trump and his administration, arguing that the agreement they reached to
resolve the president's civil lawsuit was "the product of collusion"
and a "fraud on the court." The settlement was reached as Williams was
weighing whether she even had jurisdiction over the case.
In her order, Williams said that there was no case or controversy for
the court to decide. Since it was filed by Mr. Trump against a federal
agency and officials that he, as president, had control over, there
would be no adverse litigant, she found. Williams determined that Mr.
Trump "improperly employed this lawsuit to justify a particular award in
this matter — access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and
other investigations — which was accomplished by leveraging control over
Defendants."
"President Trump did not pursue his claims until he
once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer,
and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the
'Anti-Weaponization Fund' to prominent positions in the DOJ," she wrote
in her order. "These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United
States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House
Counsel to reach a 'settlement.' It is risible to suggest that there was
ever adverseness between the Parties."
Williams excoriated the
Justice Department for its handling of the case and accused it of
"abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the
United States." By entering into the settlement with Mr. Trump, Williams
said the administration "disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished
objectives beyond those authorized, as well as those specifically
prohibited, by law."
"The nature of the suit itself and the
conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this
was an attempt to use the Court 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 wrote. "The
President may be the functional 'dominus litus' of the Executive Branch,
but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and
lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules."
The judge, who
was appointed by President Barack Obama, rejected characterizations of
the case as "ordinary" by Mr. Trump and his lawyers, calling it a
"startling misstatement."
"Lead Plaintiff and Defendants are
public servants — the pinnacle of the Executive Branch — sworn to uphold
the law, faithfully perform the duties of their office, and protect the
interests of the American public," she wrote. "The issue before the
Court is whether, instead, they ignored ethical norms, court rules, and
legal authority to manipulate the judicial process. The issue is whether
they did so to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the
public fisc with the patina of legitimacy. There is nothing 'ordinary'
about this case."
Williams also took aim at the government lawyers
working the case, saying the Trump administration "failed to defend
this lawsuit or to respond to the Court's jurisdictional inquiry because
its position would not withstand judicial scrutiny."
She said the $1.776 billion pledged for the "anti-weaponization" fund
"speaks of a 'branding' effort rather than a deliberate and thoughtful
calculation of damages."
The judge's order comes days before
Blanche is set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his
confirmation hearing for attorney general. He is expected to face sharp
questions regarding the creation of the "anti-weaponization" fund and
the effective grant of immunity to Mr. Trump. The president formally nominated Blanche, who served as Mr. Trump's private criminal defense attorney, to lead the Justice Department last month.
