Full Breakdown
Appeals Court Leaves Sanctions on Trump Lawyers in Place
By Drooid · · How we work
Court Decision
On September 29, a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request by Donald Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department to immediately block sanctions imposed on the president’s lawyers. The panel, hearing the case without dissent, ruled that the disciplinary referral of lawyer Alejandro Brito was not a final order eligible for appeal and that the prohibition on Trump and his businesses referring to the settlement did not violate First-Amendment free-speech rights.
Background of the IRS Lawsuit
In 2024, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, alleging the agency failed to protect his tax records during his first term. The suit was settled in May after negotiations between Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department. The agreement would have granted Trump and his businesses immunity from past tax claims and created a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies who claimed government mistreatment. Judge Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court in Miami later found the settlement “improperly collusive,” noting that Trump, as president, controlled the agencies he sued. She referred one of his personal lawyers to Florida disciplinary authorities and barred all parties—including Trump, his adult sons, and the Trump Organization—from describing the deal as a court settlement or citing its terms in future litigation. The Justice Department subsequently abandoned the fund after bipartisan opposition in Congress.
Legal Reasoning and Sanctions
Williams concluded that the settlement was “improperly filed” to extract personal benefits from the government. The appellate panel determined that the limited prohibition on referencing the settlement was sufficiently narrow to avoid infringing on speech rights. Because the disciplinary referral was not a final, appealable order, the sanctions remain enforceable.
Reactions
A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. Lawmakers from both parties had previously criticized the proposed $1.8 billion fund, contributing to its cancellation.
