2nd June 2026
The judge has re-opened the supposed ‘settled’ case
In a significant development the court has now re-opened the litigation which had ended in the supposed ‘settlement’ of a slush fund for President Trump’s political supporters.
You may recall that this blog has previously covered this extraordinary case.
The story so far in essence:
– Trump (and his son and company) brought a largely contrived case against his own government for inflated damages of $10 billion;
– the court rightly doubted that this was an actual dispute between the parties, and so required further submissions on jurisdiction;
– just before the deadline for those submissions, Trump and his co-plaintiffs pulled their claim, leading the court to formally end the case;
– there was then a supposed “settlement” between the parties but without any court recognition which purported to set up a $1.776 billion slush fund and also to grant legal immunity for Trump and others;
– but this ‘settlement’ has been challenged by former Capitol police and also by a group of former federal judges.
Well, the action brought by the group of former federal judges has actually gained some traction.
The judge has now re-opened the case.
*
Here is the online docket, and sometimes dockets are a form of poetry.
You can see on 18 May 2026 the case was closed, and then on 27-29 there was an application and then an Order to re-open the case.
You may recall from an earlier post that the former judges are attacking the ‘settlement’ from the perspective that there was an abuse of process in pulling the case and then purporting to settle it.
The judge now has re-opened the case, and she is now asking for even more submissions from the parties.
This places the parties in a far worse position than they were on the eve of the case being pulled. And here there seems to be no way out for the parties by trying to pull and ‘settle’ the case again. They have to come up with the submissions, else presumably the the case will be struck out.
You will see that those challenging the ‘settlement’ can, in turn, make submissions in reply.
This is a huge set-back for the parties setting up this slush-fund on the back of a ‘settlement’. If the case is struck out, there is nothing to settle, and so there cannot be any kind of ‘settlement’.
The rug is being pulled.
*
There is so, so much wrong with this case, from every angle. It is like an implausible exam question for law students. This is not what litigation is for and this is not what settlements are for.
But at least now there is a chance for the court to self-correct the excesses of the parties, for if the case is struck out there cannot be a ‘settlement’ – either recognised by the court or otherwise.
Let’s keep watching.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
In US federal practice, an unfavorable outcome (for the parties) of the inquiry Judge Williams in the US district court in Florida has ordered would likely not be simply a matter of the case being “struck out.” If there has been a fraud on the Court, sanctions on counsel under Rule 11, civil and criminal contempt citations, and references for bar disciplinary proceedings are all available to the court.
Thank you for this helpful comment.
Presumably fraud is quite hard to establish over there, as it is over here?
“Fraud on the court” is something of a term of art, and quite rare; I would not expect the same standard as required for a criminal offense of fraud, but I cannot readily cite authority setting out the applicable standard. The lawyers involved, especially those who signed pleadings filed with the court, have exposure under Rule 11, which has its own standards. The purported “settlement” document was captioned as a filing in the case, but not docketed, and presumably not filed. I have not seen whatever documentation they concocted for the purported release of Trump, his family, and their enterprises from further IRS investigations. All of it reeks of a serious abuse of process.
Presumably Fraud against a Federal Court is a federal offense, and if found guilty, Trump can pardon himself. Odd system.
As currently framed, this matter is more of an instance of imposing judicial discipline on counsel. Judge Williams’s order specifically invokes Rule 11, which is the principal disciplinary rule under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I don’t imagine the matter will ever be the subject of a criminal inquiry—at least not under the current administration. DAT Green is quite correct, in my view, that one outcome is likely to be a finding that the lawsuit was collusive, making any purported “settlement” a nullity. This will not impair the court’s ability to impose sanctions on counsel.
Because I am a bit thick I did not really understand how exactly Donald’s slush fund was supposed to operate. Who was putting money in and who was being paid out and for what reasons. I failed to see how sueing the US government was supposed to act as such a vehicle.
Maybe it is best not to elucidate, some might not like it or it would give people ideas.
Anyway, this looks just the sort of thing Trump is good at. He is knocked back this time but if he wants to do a bit of dodgy dealing I am sure he and his lawyers will find a way. Keep an eye out for the next installment.
Perhaps start with a microscopic plea quietly lodged in some hillbilly court by some hitherto unknown legal practicioner. A feel a novel coming on.
My brief experience of US Federal cases is that the issue of ‘standing’, namely whether the proposed party has a dog in the fight and so is permitted to participate in the case, is frequently the crucial point (I do not fully understand – but it seems that if not identical to ‘standing’, Mr. Trump’s problem in this case is at least similar). Is Mr. Herlihy, or anyone else, able to explain whether the ‘standing’ of those who have sought to participate and now wish to challenge the ‘Settlement’ has been an issue and, if so, what stage has been reached in dealing with that issue?
On another note – Trump has recently complained at the level of resignations of lawyers from the DoJ and the difficulty of recruiting replacements. This may be beginning to hamper his ability to fight cases effectively and therefore to push forward with some of the more controversial elements of his agenda, which invariably face legal challenges. I have read that the perspective of increasing numbers of US lawyers is that having a period of working for Trump’s DoJ on their CV’s may not prove to be the usual indicator of a ‘gold standard’ badge of quality, maybe even harmful on the longer term. If that is right, and a high-profile case like this ends messily for those representing the administration as looks possible, it is not going to help the wider aims of the administration and the DoJ.