Judge questions legal basis for Trump's $10 billion case against IRS

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: NBC News

Donald Trump
Judge questions legal basis for Trump's $10 billion case against IRS

The Florida judge asked whether there is a case if Trump, as president, is on both sides


-------- Trump sued the IRS in January, alleging they failed to prevent a former employee from improperly disclosing his tax returns. J. David Ake / Getty Images file

April 24, 2026, 10:23 PM EDT
By Gary Grumbach, Kyla Guilfoil and Ryan J. Reilly

A federal judge is asking the Justice Department and President Donald Trump's private attorneys to explain whether his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, an agency he oversees as president, is the type of dispute federal courts can consider. ... U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams called into question whether an actual disagreement between the two parties exists in a Friday order, writing that a case can only stand if there is adverseness that fulfills a controversy requirement.

"Typically, adverseness is found in a situation where one party is asserting its right and the other party is resisting," Williams wrote. "Consequently, if there is no adverseness, there is no case or controversy." ... The judge ordered both parties to explain "whether a case and controversy exists" by May 20. Williams set a hearing on the matter for May 27 in Miami.

{snip}

In her order, Williams did recognize that Trump sued the IRS in "his personal capacity," rather than as president, but wrote that "he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction." ... The IRS referred NBC News to the Justice Department when asked for comment on Williams' order. The Justice Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

{snip}

The complaint against the IRS, filed by Trump alongside two of his adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, argued that the leak caused the plaintiffs "reputational and financial harm" and "public embarrassment." The lawsuit followed a report from the New York Times that found Trump had only paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.

Gary Grumbach
Gary Grumbach is an NBC News legal affairs reporter, based in Washington, D.C.

Kyla Guilfoil
Kyla Guilfoil is a breaking news reporter on the politics team for NBC News Digital.

Ryan J. Reilly
Ryan J. Reilly is a justice reporter for NBC News.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-questions-basis-trumps-10-billion-irs-lawsuit-rcna341984

---

Hat tip, Chris Geidner

******
Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.41.0.pdf

- Order (PAPERLESS or pdf attached) AND Order Setting/Resetting/Cancelling Hearing - #41 in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (S.D. Fla., 1:26-cv-20609) - CourtListener.com
ORDER. See attached document for full details. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 4/24/2026. (ymd) (Entered: 04/24/2026)
storage.courtlistener.com
6:39 PM · Apr 24, 2026
******

Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-24T22:39:52.846Z

******

jakeofnotrades.bsky.social
‪@jakeofnotrades.bsky.social‬
Gotta love the judge citing the Executive Order that says "DOJ will do what I tell them to do."
6:45 PM · Apr 24, 2026
******

Gotta love the judge citing the Executive Order that says "DOJ will do what I tell them to do."

— (@jakeofnotrades.bsky.social) 2026-04-24T22:45:25.715Z

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Judge appears skeptical of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against IRS and Treasury

Politics
4 min read

Judge appears skeptical of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against IRS and Treasury

By Aleena Fayaz
5 hr ago


US President Donald Trump speaks during a healthcare affordability event in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on Thursday, April 23, 2026. (Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

A federal judge on Friday questioned the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department over the leak of his tax returns, ordering a hearing to determine whether the president can sue federal agencies that he oversees.

Florida District Judge Kathleen M. Williams said it is unclear whether Trump and the agencies are “sufficiently adverse to each other” and ordered both sides to provide more information on the relationship. ... “Although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction,” Williams, an Obama appointee, said in the order.

The judge noted the ways that Trump has sought to expand presidential power, pointing to an executive order barring executive branch employees from advancing legal interpretations that contradict the president’s “opinion on a matter of a law.”

“One such employee of the executive branch, the Attorney General, has a statutory obligation to defend the IRS when it is hailed into court, but then is ostensibly required by executive mandate to adhere to the President’s opinion on a matter of law in such a case,” Williams wrote. “This raises questions over whether the Parties here are truly antagonistic to each other.”

{snip}

[COL Mustard]

2. Oh, just get it into Aileen Cannon's court

She’ll award him the full $10 billion plus interest and another $10 billion for pain and suffering.

I probably shouldn’t give them any ideas.

[Aviation Pro]

3. Sleepy rapist needs his boo-boo

Fuckhead.

[OldBaldy1701E]

4. They are like leeches.

They just cannot stop themselves. If they see anything that resembles money, they have to rush over and take it.

It is in their DNA.

And, we let them because... well... I am still trying to figure that one out, other than 'they told us that we should let them' (because that seems to be the only reason).

[thesquanderer]

5. The way I read this, judge is kind of saying, "don't sue, just take the money."

It sounds like the judge is saying that Trump already has the authority to tell the IRS to give it to him. (i.e. "his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction" )

That seems worse than permitting the suit to go forward, where a jury could nullify it or reduce the amount.

[LymphocyteLover]

6. oh god I hope not. This case is outrageous.

No one even remembers his taxes at this point.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. I see. This is like if I were the head of a multinational company.......

...and an employee slandered me. Could I sue my own company as a private citizen for what that employee did, or should I handle it internally?
Interesting quandary. I don't know but it doesn't sound right and I doubt it's ever happened before. Like everything this jerk does. $10b sounds excessive

[Figarosmom]

8. Didn't trump pledge to release his tax returns

"As soon as they were out of audit". That person that released them was only following directions.

[Bayard]

9. Just another grift at taxpayer expense

DOJ has no business being involved in this at all, except to defend the IRS. At least the judge seems to have a bit of sense.

[Ray Bruns]

10. The basis was Trump tax forms made him out to be the liar he is.

[vapor2]

11. We should all sue him for dereliction of duty

This case makes me wanna vomit

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. MaddowBlog-Judge questions whether Trump can sue his own administration for $10 billion

If the president was waiting for a payout from his IRS lawsuit, a federal judge suggested he might need to start lowering his expectations.

Judge questions whether Trump can sue his own administration for billion

www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Mike Walker (@newnarrative.bsky.social) 2026-04-27T19:11:24.754Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/judge-questions-whether-trump-can-sue-his-own-administration-for-10-billion

In response to highly dubious civil lawsuits, the Trump Justice Department has been exceedingly generous lately, agreeing to lucrative settlements with plaintiffs who are politically aligned with the White House. Whether Donald Trump will be among the beneficiaries, however, remains an open question.

A federal judge suggested late last week that the president might have to lower his expectations. Politico reported:

President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns ran into turbulence Friday as a judge ordered a hearing on whether the Constitution allows the president to sue the federal government he oversees.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has asked Trump’s private attorneys and Justice Department lawyers representing the IRS to address whether his control over the government’s actions in the case means it’s the kind of dispute federal courts cannot consider.

“Although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction,” Williams wrote in a four-page order.

“It is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement,” the judge added, referring to the Constitution.....

Shortly after his lawyers filed the case, the president told reporters that he assumed “nobody would care” if he received a lucrative payout as part of the frivolous litigation. That payout now appears in doubt. Watch this space.

We spent maybe part of one Constitutional law class on the case or controversy provision of the Constitution. This usually came up in the cases dealing with advisory opinions. Here is the relevant part of the UN Constitution

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Since trump is on both sides of this silly lawsuit, there is no Case or Controversy.