MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
A federal judge says President Trump filed his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS to, quote, "manipulate the judicial process," unquote. In a 56-page opinion - a scathing opinion - U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused Trump and the Justice Department of trying to use the courts to legitimize the redirection of taxpayer money. Trump dropped the lawsuit in May after reaching a deal with the DOJ to set up a nearly $2 billion fund for Trump allies and others who felt they were wronged by past administrations. That fund was abandoned after bipartisan pushback, but the deal also gave Trump and his family immunity from prosecution over their past tax returns.
Paul Butler's a Georgetown law professor and a former federal prosecutor. He's with us now to talk more about this. Good morning, Paul.
PAUL BUTLER: Hey, Michel.
MARTIN: So what stood out to you in this ruling?
BUTLER: Two super interesting aspects. Of course, the legal analysis because this was the first time in American history where a sitting president sued the federal government for money. The judge says that's an obvious conflict of interest, but the judge's tone was even more expressive. There's exasperation that Trump and his lawyers on both sides should have known better. And there's indignation that the leader of the executive branch tried to manipulate his own government to pay his supporters almost $2 billion in taxpayer dollars and tried to make it look like a court had blessed that deal.
MARTIN: Now, the judge also referred Trump's lawyers for potential disciplinary action, for bar sanction. And it's my understanding that the DOJ lawyers have already been referred to disciplinary action by, you know, other entities. How unusual is that?
BUTLER: Wow. When a judge believes that a lawyer messed up, Rule 11 sanctions are the nuclear option. It's kind of like a red card in soccer or a flagrant foul in basketball, except it's even worse. So the judge said that the lawyers on both sides may have violated their ethical obligations as members of the bar. And she said she was punishing some of them for a deterrent, which means to send a message to every other lawyer - don't you ever come to my court trying to perpetrate this kind of fraud on the legal system.
MARTIN: But the judge stopped short of canceling the deal that would shield the president from tax scrutiny. If she believes that these violations were as egregious or this abusive process was as egregious as she says, why not do more?
BUTLER: The judge said that what she was asked to do was to review a legal case, and she found that there actually was no legal case. Trump was literally suing himself, which he admitted, the judge acknowledges in a footnote. So she forbids the administration from ever describing the arrangement as a settlement. She thought it was more like a backroom deal. And she essentially told the parties, when you discuss this, keep my name and keep the court's name out of your mouths.
MARTIN: But does this affect that deal at all? I mean, that's - I guess that's really the pending question here. Is the president and is his family still shielded from tax scrutiny - from scrutiny over their tax returns?
BUTLER: The judge implied that she thinks that it's both illegal, unethical and possibly unconstitutional. But it's not a matter that's before her, she said. As a practical matter, the fund - the weaponization fund has already gone away, according to the acting attorney general of the United States. And whether Donald Trump can - and his businesses can ever be sued for tax violations - I think it's unlikely that this quote-unquote settlement will be enforced by another administration...
MARTIN: OK.
BUTLER: ...Especially given the judge's resounding critique.
MARTIN: OK. That's Paul Butler. He's a professor at Georgetown Law. He's also a former federal prosecutor. Professor Butler, thanks.
BUTLER: Always a pleasure. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
