A federal judge on Monday sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of his tax returns, ruling that the case was brought for an improper reason, referring one of Trump’s attorneys for possible disciplinary action, and portraying the $10 billion lawsuit as an effort that improperly advanced the president’s own interests.

In a strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams concluded that Trump improperly used the judicial system by suing a federal agency that ultimately answered to his own administration. According to the ruling, the lawsuit sidestepped the basic legal requirement that opposing parties have genuinely adverse interests, ultimately leading to a proposed settlement last spring that would have shielded Trump from future tax audits while establishing a compensation fund for allies who claimed they had been unfairly targeted.

Although the practical consequences of the ruling may be limited because the administration has already announced that the proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund is no longer being pursued, the decision nonetheless delivers a forceful rebuke of the Trump administration. It also revives scrutiny surrounding Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche just days before his scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

Explaining her decision, Williams wrote, “The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”

She further stated, “The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it.”

Williams also pointed to testimony Blanche gave before Congress in early June, during which he disclosed that the proposed anti-weaponization fund was no longer moving forward following significant bipartisan criticism. Although no formal filing reflecting that change had been submitted to the court, the judge noted that Blanche nevertheless testified as though he possessed the authority to speak on behalf of both sides in the litigation.

Addressing that issue directly, Williams wrote, “Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.”

{Matzav.com}