US Judge Rebukes Trump’s IRS Lawsuit, Refers Attorney for Possible Disciplinary Action

WASHINGTON: A U.S. federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose,” referring one of his attorneys for possible disciplinary action and sharply criticizing the case as an exercise in self-dealing.

In a strongly worded ruling issued on Monday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said Trump and his legal team improperly used the judicial system by bringing a lawsuit against federal agencies under his own administration, thereby bypassing the legal requirement that opposing parties in a lawsuit have genuinely adverse interests.

The lawsuit, filed in January, accused the IRS and the Treasury Department of failing to prevent the disclosure of Trump’s confidential tax information to media organizations between 2018 and 2020. The case was later settled through an agreement that included immunity from future IRS tax audits for Trump and his family, along with the creation of a proposed $1.776 billion fund intended to compensate individuals who claimed they had been unfairly targeted by the justice system.

Judge Williams declared that the settlement lacked any valid legal foundation and appeared to be an attempt to legitimize benefits for the president and his associates using taxpayer funds. She emphasized that federal courts must safeguard their constitutional role and prevent misuse of the judicial process.

The ruling referred Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for possible disciplinary proceedings, while another lawyer, Daniel Epstein, was barred from filing cases in the Southern District of Florida for one year. The judge also directed that ethics concerns involving senior Justice Department officials connected to the case be forwarded to the appropriate disciplinary authorities.

Although the proposed “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was abandoned following bipartisan criticism, the administration has indicated it still intends to pursue provisions of the settlement concerning protection from tax audits. The ruling, however, prevents the settlement from taking legal effect and underscores growing judicial scrutiny over the administration’s handling of the case.