Today was a potentially pivotal day in figuring out whether the Rule of Law in the U.S. will actually survive until whenever the end of the Trump Administration comes to pass.
Judge Kathleen Williams, a federal district judge in Florida, issued a 56-page order, addressing the sham litigation filed by Trump, his sons, and his company against the IRS.
I’ve written repeatedly (even if not as often as I’d have liked to) during Trump 2.0 about the fact that his authoritarian agenda can’t be accomplished without the help of lawyers and that it appears that the judicial branch of our government is the only thing we have that might stop it.
Judge Williams’ order is a sterling example of the judiciary being willing to do its job to protect and enforce the Rule of Law. It is also a sterling example of what lawyers should not be permitted to get away with in aiding the assault on government coming from the Executive Branch.
The issues raised by this particular sham litigation at this particular moment in time should only have ever been the stuff of a hypothetical law school exam question, but they actually happened.
I would strongly suggest you read the entire opinion which you can get at this link.
But, in an effort to try to be a bit light-hearted about something not all that funny, let’s channel Stefon about why you should read it.
Judge Williams’ ruling has everything:
It, like Trump, treats his kids as a parenthetical.
It uses Trump’s own positions on his total control over all aspects of the Executive Branch to demonstrate that he cannot sue it, control how it responds, and try to claim that there is sufficient adversity between the parties for there to a non-sham case.
It also does that using the language of two of his own Executive Orders.
It calls the Department of Justice to task for the systemic failure that has arisen from dereliction of its statutory duties and choosing to embrace the stain of political influence by internally treating Trump as its “chief client.”
It makes the point that the $1.776 billion amount of the “Anti Weaponization Fund” was likely a stupid number picked for stupid reasons.
It provides receipts of the hypocrisy inherent in the way the DOJ operates today even in comparison to what it said and did during Trump’s first term.
It actually discusses the severe conflict of interest issues associated with Todd Blanche’s and Stanley Woodward, Jr.’s involvement in the matter for the government given their history of past representation of other clients.
It explains that the blanket IRS immunity agreed to by the IRS violates a federal statute.
It hoists Mr. Blanche on his petard of having the unilateral ability before Congress to repudiate the planned Fund which had been alleged to be part of a settlement agreement: “Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a “settlement” document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.”
It quotes, multiple times, Trump v. Clinton, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2023), in ruling that: “[Plaintiffs] pursued this lawsuit in bad faith for the improper purpose of dishonestly advancing a political narrative.” Which is a helpful reminder of “Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.”
Having found that the lawsuit was a sham, it assesses as a Rule 11 sanction against the parties that none of them can ever refer to this thing as being a settlement agreement of anything or offering any of its parts as evidence of such a thing in any judicial or administrative forum.
And, having found that this sham lawsuit was brought for an improper purpose, it assesses Rule 11 sanctions against some of the lawyers involved and sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority against the others.
Specifically, as sanctions under Rule 11, it refers the lawyer who signed the complaint, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. It orders that the attorney for Plaintiffs who signed the settlement agreement (but did not seek pro hac admission), who has the last name Epstein, is to be denied pro hac admission in the Southern District of Florida for at least a year.
And finding that all of this was done in bad faith, the order wields sanctions under its inherent authority, including referring Mr. Blanche’s conduct to ongoing disciplinary proceedings in New York and referring Mr. Woodward, Jr.’s conduct to ongoing disciplinary proceedings in the District of Columbia.
It ends with a well-known John Adams quote about facts being stubborn things.