A federal judge in Florida rebuked a settlement of a lawsuit over the leak of President Donald Trump’s tax returns, saying the case was brought for an “improper purpose” and imposing professional penalties on lawyers involved. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams referred one attorney for possible discipline, restricted another lawyer’s ability to practice in her court, and barred both sides from invoking terms of their private deal in future government or court proceedings, according to the Associated Press and CBS News.
The lawsuit began after Trump and two of his sons sued the IRS and Treasury earlier over the disclosure of the president’s tax information by a government contractor. As the case progressed, the administration revealed a settlement that included two headline items: a proposed “anti-weaponization” fund for people claiming government overreach, and language that would prevent the IRS from pursuing certain past tax claims against Trump, his sons, and affiliated businesses. The Justice Department later said it would not move forward with the fund after criticism, the Washington Post reported. CBS News reported that the tax-protection portion of the deal remains in place, while the Post said Williams’s order could effectively limit those protections because the parties may not cite the agreement in official proceedings. The AP also noted uncertainty, writing that the judge stopped short of voiding the deal but questioned its legitimacy.
Williams faulted the original lawsuit for lacking true adversaries because Trump, as president, controlled the agencies he was suing. She concluded the case was used to secure the appearance of judicial approval for a settlement that steered public money and tax protections, according to CBS News. She referred attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for potential discipline and limited attorney Daniel Epstein’s ability to practice in the Southern District of Florida for up to a year, the AP and CBS News reported.
The judge also directed her ruling to attorney disciplinary bodies in New York and the District of Columbia; reports say inquiries have been opened in those jurisdictions involving Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, both of whom signed documents tied to the settlement, according to the Post and CBS News. The Justice Department has defended the agreement, denying any collusion and arguing the court’s approval was not required, the Post reported.
Outside voices weighed in too. A group of former federal judges had asked Williams to take a hard look at the deal, arguing it was negotiated in bad faith and noting that lawyers on both sides worked for the president, the Post and CBS News reported. Williams’s order arrived shortly before Blanche is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing to become attorney general, a session that both AP and CBS News say could feature questions about the fund and the attempted audit protections.
Why it matters
This fight isn’t just about one lawsuit. It tests whether a president could use a case against his own administration to lock in personal tax protections and tap public funds, and whether that passes legal muster. It also raises basic fairness questions for anyone who files taxes: do the same IRS rules apply to everyone? Finally, the ruling could shape the Justice Department’s leadership, since the acting attorney general’s Senate hearing could carry added weight.