Former Federal Judges Seek to Reopen Trump-IRS Settlement

On May 27, 2026, a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asking Judge Kathleen M. Williams to set aside her dismissal of President Donald Trump’s IRS lawsuit and order an inquiry into the settlement reached after the case was voluntarily dismissed. The judges claim the settlement may have been obtained through unlawful private benefits and without constitutional or congressional authority.

New York Times

President Trump sued the IRS in early 2026, claiming the agency was weaponized against his political activities. After months of litigation, the parties announced a settlement that created a $1.8 billion fund for victims and granted tax relief to Trump entities. Judge Williams dismissed the case after Trump withdrew his suit, but the settlement terms were later disclosed, prompting the former judges’ challenge.

New York Times

Key participants include President Donald Trump, the plaintiff; Judge Kathleen M. Williams, the presiding judge; the 35 former federal judges who filed the motion; the U.S. Department of Justice, which has not responded; and Senate Republicans, who have expressed skepticism about the settlement’s use of taxpayer funds.

New York Times

The settlement creates a $1.8 billion fund to compensate victims of “weaponization” and grants unspecified tax benefits to Trump, his family and his businesses. The filing contends the fund lacks any constitutional or congressional authorization.

New York Times

The Justice Department declined to comment. Senate Republicans have publicly questioned the legality of allocating federal money to a politically aligned group, calling the arrangement deeply concerning and urging congressional oversight. No response from Judge Williams has been reported.

New York Times

The motion alleges the settlement lacks constitutional authority, yet the language of the agreement has not been released. The Justice Department’s silence leaves the government’s legal position unclear, and the filing does not detail how the $1.8 billion fund will be administered or what eligibility criteria will apply.

New York Times

• “The purported ‘settlement’ that was publicly disclosed after this court dismissed this matter 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,” — Lawyers for the former judges

New York Times

• “ Moreover, the former judges claimed that the president tried to shield the deal from “judicial scrutiny” by “short-circuiting” Judge Williams’ ability to examine its terms.” — Motion filed by the former judges

New York Times

• “without constitutional or congressional authority.” — Motion filed by the former judges

New York Times