Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded
from the well-look-at-that dept
Most legal experts seemed pretty skeptical about the tactic of 35 former federal judges asking federal judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case where Trump sued his own IRS demanding $10 billion. Turns out they were wrong — on Friday, Judge Williams reopened the case, not going so far as to investigate whether fraud had been committed upon the court (yet), but ordering the plaintiffs (Donald Trump) to file a response to those claims:
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Motion (DE 63) on or before June 12, 2026, detailing their position on the matters set forth in the Motion, including (1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the “victim of a fraud.”
So it’s not yet a full reopening, but clearly signals that the judge felt compelled by what those other judges had submitted. We already knew she was skeptical about whether the parties were truly adverse — she had flagged it explicitly, which is part of what pushed Trump to have his IRS settle with himself before she could dig any deeper.
While Trump has been ordered to respond by June 12th, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see his lawyers (I almost said the DOJ, but, you know, same thing these days) try to rush to either an appeals court or straight to the Supreme Court’s shadow docket — Donald Trump is not exactly known for accepting courts telling him he broke the rules.
There are some other interesting tidbits in the ruling from the judge, including this footnote:
The Court is aware of reporting that the IRS prepared a memorandum outlining ways to challenge Plaintiffs’ claims. Andrew Duehren, The I.R.S. Thought It Could Fight Trump’s Lawsuit, but It Struck a Deal Anyway, N.Y. Times (May 19, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/admin/irs-trump-lawsuit-deal.html. These defenses are consistent with the positions taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice in other litigation.
That’s a pointed eyebrow raise from the judge — essentially noting for the record that the IRS knew the lawsuit was bullshit and the DOJ “settled” anyway.
Just before that, there’s another footnote putting a spotlight on Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for his unusually hands-on involvement:
This addendum, as the non-party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are “specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised.” (DE 63 at 8). The addendum was signed only by the Acting Attorney General.
While it’s still early days, the judge is essentially putting it on the record that basically everything here looks sketchy, and she wants Donald Trump’s lawyers to explain themselves before she turns the heat up.
Filed Under: donald trump, fraud, fraud on the court, irs, kathleen williams, settlement, todd blanche, weaponization fund
Comments on “Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded”
Today
Today in HurrrrrDurrrrrr, no shit sherlock.
Of course the court, and the US was defrauded. It’s tRump, what the hell did you expect?
Re:
Exactly, he’s the poster child for fraud. Look up fraud in the dictionary and there’s his ugly mug.
Re: Re:
Well, not “exactly”. Fraud is often said to be based on lies, and lying requires intentional untruth—which suggests one would have to know what’s true in the first place. Trump, by contrast, speaks without regard to truth or untruth, may have little knowledge of what’s true or how facts work, and might not even be competent to be put on trial.
Re: Re: Re:
Which is why when dealing with legal definitions usually phrase it as “knowing it was untrue, or with reckless disregard for it’s truth”. Trump falls under the “reckless disregard” part. What he’s saying is false, he’s saying it deliberately, and whether he knows it’s false or just doesn’t care is a difference without a difference.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s a good point about the legal wording, but doesn’t address the implicit standard that one must generally be capable of understanding the truth to be considered reckless with regard to it. And I seriously don’t know whether Trump would be considered sane enough to stand trial (on the other hand, any lawyer who suggests an insanity defense will be fired—until the courts stop this game of lawyer-roulette).
You wish.
She has absolutely no way to “turn the heat up.” This is putting on record that court and the public were getting bullshitted and the court is washing its hands of it because it had no say in the matter.
This will die a flaming death the moment it reaches an appeals court because it adjucates matters never put before the court intentionally, and she knows it. But it will die a flaming death on record. And Trump will do everything he can to make her suffer for her insolence.
Not just for her sake it is to be hoped that there is going to be justice after Trump.
Re:
Hopefully that means that the “settlement” isn’t allowed to pay out anyone until a higher court kills it.
Giving time for all the other legal challenges against this “settlement” to secure their own injunctions.
Re: Re: Stop using Trumpspeak
It isn’t a settlement, not even one in quotes. It is a gift the DoJ is not authorized to make. This court has absolutely no involvement with it unless a damaged party sues in this venue.
Re:
But those issues were put before the court intentionally when Trump filed his suit. The court has inherent authority to decide whether there’s an actual controversy or not and to question the parties to determine the answer.
It’s important to get all this on the record because it changes the way the DOJ’s “settlement” is viewed. Without any case to settle, the question becomes whether the DOJ has the authority to create such a fund on it’s own, and the answer to that is a “No.” that’ll be hard for even Trump loyalists on the SC to argue with. Trump might have the authority to create such a fund on his own initiative, but that’s a really bad look which is why he’s doing it via a backdoor. Plus of course doing it himself gives Congress a way to kill it’s funding which he doesn’t want either.
Show me a Trump case where the court was not defrauded.
There are rumors that he’s backing off the slush fund, though they’re anonymously-sourced and the only quoted source said “It’s dead for now,” emphasis mine, like it might come back later.
Re:
If he needs to finance his January 6th militiæ for midterm election damage control, he’ll likely have other sources for funding he can lean on.
This was just too convenient and obscene to pass up on, but it is not anything like his last option.
Re:
So you’re saying it could become a zombie slush…
…just like his brain.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Again, Obama did the EXACT same thing.
You just want two sets of rules for Democrats vs Republicans. You’re ridiculous.
Re:
I responded to this false statement that this same trolling commenter made last week and, of course, he ran away and didn’t respond. I’ll just copy and past it again here though:
I know this person is trolling, but just for anyone who wants to be educated, not stupid, let’s work through why this troll comment is nonsense.
“activist judges”
This is the new line that MAGA trolls like to throw out every time a ruling goes against them. The problem is that the vast, vast, vast majority or rulings go against them, and there is little to no evidence of “activist judges” in those cases (hell, many of the rulings are Trump appointed judges). Without any additional evidence (such as a long pattern of partisan rulings, or ignoring or dismissing on point precedent) this claim is bullshit.
Are there activist judges? Yes, a few, though not that many. And in every case I can point to actual evidence of why a judge is considered as such, not “oh they ruled against me this one time.”
“Overturned in a week or so.”
This isn’t even a ruling yet to overturn. It’s just a temporary injunction to allow for more briefing in one week. Indeed, the fact that the judge DENIED the request for a TRO again points to the lack of it being an activist judge, but rather one who just said “hey let’s wait two weeks to get more info.”
“You’ll completely fail to comment on it.”
Doubtful. There are many stories happening every day and if I am super busy or traveling maybe I won’t comment on every turn in the case, but this is an important case so I’ll likely comment on it. It’s also provably false on the implication that I don’t write about cases where I disagree with the outcome. I do that all the freaking time as anyone who can read (and isn’t a troll) can tell.
“This is almost exactly the same as what Obama did”
It’s not. If this troll could read, we actually already addressed this in our earlier post, citing not some “leftist activist” but rather Ed Whelan, one of the most right wing conservative legal commentators out there, who pointed out all of the many (important) ways in which this was entirely different from what Obama did.
As Whelan noted, the Keepseagle settlement was approved by a court, which makes all the difference in the world. This one was not. Second, the Keepseagle settlement had very strict restrictions on who could make a claim on the fund, and what evidence you needed to present to be eligible for a claim. This fund does not have that.
So no, any actual lawyer will tell you this is extraordinarily different than the Keepseagle fund (which is what the troll is falsely suggesting is similar to this).
This is today’s lesson in “how to debunk bullshit MAGA talking points.”
I am sure the troll will return with insults and goalpost moving (it’s all they can do) but it won’t make them any less full of shit.
Re: Re:
You also show the downside: It takes paragraphs of explanation to rebut someone who brought out a one-line trolling assertion.
The truth has to work longer hours, because some people simply prefer the fiction.
Re: Re: Re:
You can be a chess grandmaster, but when you play with a pigeon it will just shit all over the board and move on to the next one while you’re taking your next move.
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed ,and yet it is a necessity. Which is why he did a copy+paste instead of an approach that took longer.
Re: Re:
Mike, I found another use for AI. Have it read comments and when trolls post it can regurgitate the appropriate response like a copy+paste.
Dont worry there wont be any false positives or false negatives. :p
Re: Re:
Again, Obama did the EXACT same thing.
It’s not my fault your website is absolute shit, it’s yours. I’m not gonna always check back 6 hours to a day later to see if my comment posted. I’m not that invested. It isn’t 2005 anymore, fix your shitty site.
Nothing else you said was worth responding to, it had no value at all. You’re a hyper partisan activist who doesn’t understand the law very well.
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, the troll is trolling, but for everyone else with working braincells: the troll claims that Obama did the exact same thing, even as I already proved that was false.
Furthermore, the troll claims that my response is as a “hyper partisan activist” which is laughable for multiple reasons with the leading one being that the evidence I presented earlier WAS FROM A HYPER PARTISAN GOP activist, Ed Whelan, who pointed out why what Trump did here was nothing like what Obama did.
If you don’t know, Whelan was one of the main people who helped get Brett Kavanaugh approved for the Supreme Court. He’s not a Democrat, a leftist, or anti-Trump. He’s very supportive.
This is why trolls are so exhaustingly stupid. They will post blatantly, easily proven-false lies over and over again because their goal is not to convince, or even to make a real argument.
Their goal is to distract and get people upset.
Don’t fall for it. You can just point out the false statements and move on knowing full well that this individual has deep insecurities and inadequacies that present themselves through his boorish, trollish behavior.
Re: Re: Re:
Donald Trump used his control over the government to settle a lawsuit the government brought against him while he wasn’t president. He also used that settlement to basically immunize himself and his family against investigations and prosecutions for potential financial crimes.
We can point to how Trump did those things. Can you point to how Obama did those things?
It is your fault that your posts keep getting caught in the spamfilter, though. Maybe reflect on why that is. Could it have to do with the years of trolling and bad-faith posting you’ve done, including your recent turn into repeating a slur for developmentally disabled people because Everyone Is 12 Theory is accurate as fuck about you?
It’s telling how, when presented with facts you can’t rebut, you complain about a post having “no value”. Why do you value lies over the truth?
Every accusation, a confession.
Re:
Obama tried to steal $10 BILLION dollars from US tax payers?
You really are a special kind of stupid.
Re: Re:
Obama did stolen hundreds of billions of dollars from US tax payers. (Source: Trump)
Re:
Prove it. Prove what Obama did and what Trump is trying to do are, with as little room for error as possible, exactly the same. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Re: Re:
As will any real estate agent, because that room is fit for a dance hall.
Re: Re:
I’d go one further.
When a person you disagree with does something you disagree with, the response should never be “hey, I’ll do it too!”
So even if Obama did the same thing (he didn’t), it shouldn’t matter at all in this case.
As soon as someone stoops to “but THEY got away with it” as the core of their argument, I think everyone already knows they did something wrong. And usually the reason THEY “got away with it” is that THEY didn’t do the same thing, and someone is trying to get similar results (more money) without going through the same process (the courts).
Re: Re:
I’m only learning about this today, but the troll seems to think “adjudicated traitors and seditionists” == “Native American farmers who were denied loans by racists.”
I think he’s already gotten more attention for that stance than he deserves.
Re:
You’re a fucking steaming pile of ODS-addled lying, imbecilic shit, ain’t you?