The idea that a sitting president could sue their own administration and negotiate a settlement using taxpayer money with themselves was always fundamentally undemocratic and absurd.
Presidents can’t negotiate with themselves, but that is what Trump did to arrive at a settlement that would ban the IRS from ever auditing him or his family while creating a slush fund to allow Trump to pay off his allies who attacked the Capitol and tried to overturn the 2020 election.
PoliticusUSA is 100% independent news and opinion with no outside influence. Support us by becoming a subscriber.
Judge Kathleen Williams wrote:
In dismissing the non-parties’ claims of collusion, Plaintiffs reveal the true position of the Parties and say the quiet part out loud: “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.” (DE 89 at 15). The power to resolve was never a question before this Court. Whether Executive Branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this Court.
The question is whether the Parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding “no”: the Lead Plaintiff and the Government are
one, a fully realized unitary interest. Because “Plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that the [L]ead Plaintiff, President Trump, directs and controls the Defendants[,]” this “renders this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper.” See DE 94 at 4.
And because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact. As was observed in another matter brought in this District, “this case is part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.” Trump v. Clinton, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2023).
The lawsuit was a sham that used the courts to create an air of legitimacy around the settlement. However, both sides were working for Trump, which is why Trump’s lawyers are facing punishment from the court.
