35 Judges File Lawsuit AGAINST Trump!

ournationnews.com — Thirty-five retired federal judges just accused a former president and his own Justice Department of using a sham lawsuit to unlock a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded war chest—and they want the court to admit it was played.

Story Snapshot

Retired judges from both parties filed a motion to reopen Donald Trump’s dismissed lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department, alleging “fraud on the court.”^[2]^[1]
They say Trump dropped his $10 billion case in exchange for a secret settlement that created a $1.776–$1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund and sweeping tax immunity.^[1]^[2]
The judges argue the lawsuit was collusive because Trump, as president, effectively sat on both sides of the dispute.^[1]
They ask the judge to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to set aside the dismissal and investigate whether the court was misled.^[1]^[2]

How a $10 Billion Lawsuit Turned Into a Billion-Dollar Fund

Donald Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department for $10 billion after his tax information leaked, framing it as a stand against the “weaponization” of government.^[2] Coverage of the later settlement says the Department of Justice announced a nearly $1.8 billion fund tied to Trump dropping that lawsuit.^[2] That fund, branded as an “anti-weaponization” pool, is presented in the reporting as a vehicle for compensating alleged victims of government overreach while dramatically lowering Trump’s own legal exposure.^[1]^[2]

Retired federal judge Shira Scheindlin, one of the signatories, describes the deal this way: Trump dismissed his case, and in return the government created a $1.776 billion fund and granted him, his family, and his businesses broad immunity from ongoing tax inquiries up to the settlement date.^[1] She characterizes the agreement as “collusive” and “a fraud on the court,” arguing it packaged personal protection and political messaging inside what was presented publicly as an ordinary dismissal.^[1]

Why These Judges Say The Court Was Deceived

The crux of the motion is not that settlements are unusual, but that this one allegedly ran around the judge who was supposed to supervise the case.^[1] Scheindlin recounts that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams was told in open court there was no settlement and that Trump was simply voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit.^[1] On that very same day, according to Scheindlin’s description, the settlement agreement creating the fund and granting immunity was signed by senior Justice Department officials—without disclosure to the presiding judge.^[1]

That timeline matters because federal courts require a genuine “case or controversy” before they can exercise power.^[1] The retired judges argue there may have been no real dispute here at all, since Trump, as president, effectively controlled the very agencies he sued.^[1] If the lawsuit was contrived so the parties could invoke the court’s caption, then cut a side deal the judge never saw, they argue the judiciary was used as a prop to legitimize a political and financial arrangement the public never had a chance to scrutinize.^[1]^[2]

Rule 60, Fraud on the Court, and the Conservative Instinct for Accountability

The motion leans on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a court to reopen even a voluntary dismissal with prejudice when there is evidence of fraud on the court.^[1] Scheindlin notes that Judge Williams can grant relief either on the retired judges’ motion or on her own initiative, then conduct an inquiry into whether there was ever a real case or controversy and what was kept off the record.^[1] That standard is intentionally high; courts reserve it for conduct that corrupts the judicial process itself, not just sharp-elbowed lawyering.

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

From a common-sense conservative perspective, the issue cuts deeper than Trump or any party label. If a president can sue his own agencies, quietly strike a deal using the court’s case caption, then claim immunity and a massive discretionary fund without the judge ever seeing the terms, the precedent shreds basic notions of separation of powers and fiscal responsibility. Taxpayers of all stripes have an interest in knowing whether nearly $1.8 billion was structured as a lawful remedy or as a political slush fund.^[1]^[2]

What We Still Do Not Know—and Why It Matters

Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the public record is thin where it matters most. The actual motion by the 35 retired judges, the settlement agreement, the docket entries, and any sealed filings are not included in the reporting summarized here.^[1]^[2] Without those documents, outsiders cannot definitively confirm the claimed immunity terms, the legal authority for the fund, or the precise representations made to Judge Williams. That evidentiary gap leaves room for partisan spin on both sides.^[1]^[2]

What the retired judges are demanding, at bottom, is sunlight: a reopened case, a hard look at whether a president and his own Justice Department colluded to mislead a federal court, and a public accounting of how a multibillion-dollar fund was engineered.^[1]^[2] Whether one admires or despises Trump, the principle is the same. Courts cannot afford to become backdrops for political theater financed with taxpayer dollars. If fraud on the court occurred, conservatives and liberals alike have a stake in seeing it exposed—and if it did not, the public deserves proof strong enough to close this chapter for good.