35 Judges File Lawsuit AGAINST Trump!

Man in blue suit and striped tie, serious expression.

Thirty-five retired federal judges just accused a former president of using a bogus lawsuit to grab a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded war chest—and they are asking a federal court to call it what they say it is: fraud on the court.

Story Snapshot

Thirty-five retired federal judges filed a motion to reopen Donald Trump’s voluntarily dismissed lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
They claim Trump’s so-called “anti-weaponization” settlement, tied to a $1.8 billion fund, was the product of collusion and deception.^[1]^[2]
They argue the case was never a genuine dispute because Trump, as president, effectively sat on both sides of the “v.”^[1]^[2]
The motion leans on Rule 60 “fraud on the court” doctrine, a rarely invoked nuclear option reserved for extreme misconduct.^[1]

How a Quiet IRS Lawsuit Turned Into a $1.8 Billion Political Flashpoint

Donald Trump filed a ten-billion-dollar lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department over leaks of his tax information, a headline-grabbing claim that sounded like a showdown with the federal bureaucracy.^[3] The case landed before United States District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida. On paper, it looked like a standard high-stakes civil suit. Then, on May 18, the whole thing vanished in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The court was told there was no settlement.^[1]

That same day, according to the former judges’ filing and public reporting, the Department of Justice signed a settlement agreement with Trump that did far more than end a lawsuit.^[1] Media and interview transcripts describe a deal that created a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund and granted Trump, his family, and his businesses immunity from ongoing tax inquiries for conduct up to the date of the settlement.^[1] The retired judges say Judge Williams was never told that such a sweeping arrangement even existed.^[1]

Why 35 Retired Judges Say This Was Not a Real Lawsuit

Retired federal judge Shira Scheindlin, one of the signatories, put the core claim bluntly: there may never have been a real “case or controversy” because Trump, as president, was effectively on both sides of the dispute.^[1] The president controls the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice that defends it. According to this theory, Trump used the form of a lawsuit to launder a political and financial deal through a court caption while keeping the judge in the dark about the true bargain.^[1]^[2]

The judges call the arrangement “collusive” and “a fraud on the court.”^[1] They argue that when the lawyers told Judge Williams there was no settlement on the record, yet signed the settlement agreement the same day with the government, they turned the court into a prop rather than a neutral arbiter.^[1] From a common-sense conservative lens, if the executive branch can quietly trade away enforcement and shower friendly groups with a giant fund using a sham lawsuit, the separation of powers and basic taxpayer protections are at risk.

The Legal Grenade: Rule 60 and “Fraud on the Court”

The 35 retired judges have not merely complained on cable news; they filed a formal motion urging Judge Williams to reopen the case under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.^[1]^[2] Rule 60 allows a court to set aside a final judgment in extraordinary circumstances, including fraud on the court. Scheindlin explains that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice counts as a final judgment, which means the judge still has the power to revisit it if she concludes the process was corrupted.^[1]

Fraud on the court is not about routine sharp-elbowed lawyering. Federal courts reserve that label for conduct that strikes at the integrity of the judicial process itself—bribery, manufactured cases, or deliberate deception that prevents the judge from doing her job. The retired judges say that is exactly what happened: the court specifically noted there was “no settlement,” assumed the case was simply being dropped, and was never told that a massive side deal had already been signed that depended on the lawsuit’s caption.^[1]

Is This Accountability or Purely Political Theater?

Trump and the government have publicly maintained that the dismissal and settlement were lawful, routine exercises of their authority, and their defenders cast the retired judges’ move as partisan lawfare. That narrative might resonate in a hyper-politicized environment, but the judges’ group is described as bipartisan, with appointees from both parties.^[2]^[3] That mixed pedigree makes it harder to wave them away as just another anti-Trump resistance project and gives their motion institutional heft.

35 Retired Judges File Motion to Reopen Settled Lawsuit Between Trump and the IRShttps://t.co/Sb3wXznffv pic.twitter.com/hwDAJRytZ7

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 29, 2026

However, the public record the media has shown so far is incomplete. Reporters and interviewers describe the settlement terms and the fund’s mechanics, but the actual settlement agreement, dismissal papers, and full docket are not laid out in open sources.^[1]^[2] That gap matters. Americans who value limited government and clean process should insist on daylight before reaching final judgment. If the documents confirm that the court was misled, reopening the case would simply be the system correcting itself. If not, voters deserve to see that too, without spin.