Judge slaps Trump DOJ with sanctions and a lecture for 'manipulating' legal process

A federal court judge got "really worked up" in a ruling against President Donald Trump and his Justice Department on Monday.

Legal analysts posted the ruling in Trump's IRS case, in which the judge decided the lawsuit and creation of $1.8 "anti-weaponization fund" was improper as Trump was in control of both sides of the negotiations and litigation.

One of the findings from the judge is that the plaintiff's attorney, Alejandro Brito, is being referred to the Florida Bar for an investigation to decide whether disciplinary actions are warranted. Another attorney, Daniel Z. Epstein, "will be denied for one year" admission "pro hac vicein the Southern District of Florida."

According to legal reporter Chris Geidner, who runs the Law Dork substack, "Judge Kathleen Williams also sanctions Trump's lawyers, issues monetary sanctions and harshly criticizes DOJ's 'untenable' conduct."

Trump legal foe Norm Eisen took a victory lap, commenting on BlueSky, that the ruling "Knocks out any legal basis for the $1.8 billion, Also undermines the accompanying settlements, And opens the way to ethics [and] financial SANCTIONS."

Among the comments from the judge includes the accusation that Trump "abused the judicial process" in what amounts to a sham case just to have "access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations."

"It is risible to suggest there was ever adverseness between the parties," wrote Judge Williams.

New Mexico civil litigator Owen Barcala posted specifics about the case, encouraging folks to peruse it as it's "a fun read, you can tell the judge really got worked up by what Trump/DOJ was trying to do, but I'm not really sure it invalidates or nullifies the settlement agreement as some people are saying."

"The main holding," he explained, "is that there was not sufficient adversity to support Article III jurisdiction. That means the court never had jurisdiction over this supposed claim and can't enter any orders on the merits. So, functionally, the court can't enter an order directed at the validity of the agreement."

He added, "But the court can enter non-merits orders against the parties in the form of sanctions. This supports the purpose of Rule 11 because, otherwise, a party who files a frivolous case escapes precisely because the case is frivolous. So a court has to have the ability to sanction even after dismissing. The court recognizes this because the sanction is directed toward the parties, not the merits of the settlement fund itself. The parties cannot refer to the purported 'settlement agreement' as a 'settlement' reached in this matter. The last part is important — limited to a 'settlement' in this case."

The ruling is a tough blow, coming mere days ahead of attorney general candidate Todd Blanche's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he will face questions from lawmakers on the matter.

"Blanche and [Stanley] Woodward were required to recuse themselves from issues related to the [January 6] and stolen documents criminal inquiries (because they represented Trump) and instead those were Exhibits A and B in 'anti-weaponization' claims for settlement," Law & Chaos co-reporter Andrew Torrez remarked on BlueSky.