A federal judge in Miami issued non-monetary sanctions on Monday against President Donald J. Trump’s legal team, ruling that a multibillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the president against the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of the Treasury was an unconstitutional, collusive effort to secure taxpayer funds and audit immunities.
In a 56-page order filed on July 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined that the lawsuit lacked the basic adversarial requirements dictated by Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Because Trump currently serves as president and holds direct constitutional and statutory authority over the federal agencies named as defendants, the court ruled that no genuine “case or controversy” ever existed between the parties.
The litigation stemmed from a January 2026 complaint filed by Trump, his sons, and The Trump Organization seeking 10 billion dollars in damages over the 2019 unlawful disclosure of their tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. Shortly before deadlines to respond to the court’s jurisdictional questions passed, the two sides entered a voluntary dismissal and publicized a sweeping settlement agreement.
The deal included a formal apology from the United States, a blanket ban on future tax audits for the Trump family, and the creation of a 1.776 billion dollar “Anti-Weaponization Fund” financed by the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund.
The court criticized the parameters of the lawsuit and the subsequent agreement, noting that lead plaintiff and the defendants share a unified interest. The order stated that the lawsuit was brought for an improper purpose, specifically “to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact.”
The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ characterization of the dispute as standard civil litigation, writing that the issue was whether public servants “ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process.” The court added, “There is nothing ‘ordinary’ about this case; it is the very definition of sui generis.”
The ruling highlighted that for the 109 days the case was active, no attorney representing the United States filed an appearance or challenged the claims. Instead, the deal was signed on behalf of the government by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr.—both of whom previously served as personal defense counsel for Trump or his close associates.
Acting Attorney General Blanche later testified before Congress that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would not move forward, a move the court viewed as further evidence of a lack of adverseness, noting it demonstrated Blanche’s confidence that he could unilaterally speak for and bind both sides of the matter.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and its own inherent authority to police the integrity of judicial proceedings, the court issued three distinct non-monetary sanctions. First, the court referred plaintiffs’ Florida-based attorney, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for disciplinary consideration.
Second, the court barred attorney Daniel Z. Epstein from applying for pro hac vice admission—temporary permission to practice in a jurisdiction where an attorney is not licensed—within the Southern District of Florida for a period of one year.
Finally, the order strictly prohibits all parties and their corporate affiliates from citing, using, or introducing the aborted settlement agreement as evidence of an official legal settlement in any future judicial or administrative proceeding.
Additionally, the court directed copies of the order to be sent to the state bars of New York and the District of Columbia, where separate disciplinary proceedings are already ongoing against Blanche and Woodward. The court concluded that federal lawsuits cannot be utilized to rubberstamp non-adversarial, political agreements.
While acknowledging that a president has a legal right to seek statutory remedies as a private individual, the court emphasized that any such action must be bound by the same structural legal guardrails, timelines, and independent defenses that apply to all other citizens.
READ: Thune Fights Back Tears On Senate Floor In Tribute To Lindsey Graham
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
