Society for the Rule of Law Statement on Trump v. IRS
The Society for the Rule of Law welcomes the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Trump v. IRS, which has imposed non-monetary disciplinary action against the parties involved in the contrived settlement that created the Anti-Weaponization Fund. The disciplinary response includes Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court found that this unlawful agreement “had no viable basis in law or fact” and observed, quoting Trump v. Clinton, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2023), that “this case is part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.”
The Society for the Rule of Law Institute categorically condemned the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund and applauded then-Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey’s decision to resign in response to this blatant perversion of justice. In contrast, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche actively assisted with the formation of this unlawful agreement. The District Court expressed that it was, “extremely troubled by the testimony given by Acting Attorney General Blanche,” and characterized his words as “at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous.” Trump v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 26-20609-CV-WILLIAMS, slip op. at 29 n.59 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026). The court has referred its order to the ongoing New York State Bar ethics complaint against Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The Society for the Rule of Law Institute has previously sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing Mr. Blanche’s confirmation; these developments strongly reinforce the letter’s arguments.
The Court articulated its concerns in stark terms:
Lead Plaintiff and Defendants are public servants—the pinnacle of the Executive Branch—sworn to uphold the law, faithfully perform the duties of their office, and protect the interests of the American public. The issue before the Court is whether, instead, they ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process. The issue is whether they did so to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the public fisc with the patina of legitimacy.
. . . President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to prominent positions in the DOJ. These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House Counsel to reach a “settlement.” It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties.
Trump v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 26-20609-CV-WILLIAMS, slip op. at 2, 37 n.59 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026).
The presiding Judge Williams cited an amicus brief filed by Society for the Rule of Law Board Member Judge Michael Luttig and 34 other retired federal judges. She credited this brief for contributing to her decision to remove the initial dismissal of the case and investigate the process behind the unlawful agreement. The Society for the Rule of Law encourages the respective congressional committees to scrutinize the conduct of the attorneys involved, and for all lawyers representing the United States to honor their oath of office and adhere to the highest professional standards.
# # #