Judge Williams 56 page Order explaining "improper purpose" of Trump's IRS lawsuit

By David Oscar Markus

Sorry to write over Jordi's post below, but woooooweeeeee, this is a doozy and I wanted to get it out there.  I can't do Judge Williams' order justice in a short post, so you'll just have to read it here.

The conclusion:

John Adams warned, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Thus, whatever may be the Parties’ wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court did not have to “sally forth” to look for a wrong to right. See DE 89 at 17 (citing Margolin v. Nat’l Ass’n of Immig. Judges, 608 U.S. __ (2026)). The Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here:  

 1. Donald Trump is President. 

 2. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department Scott Bessent, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and all Executive Branch actors.  

 3. President Trump, through Executive Order § 7, also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice. See supra note 28.  

4. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government’s position, interest, or awareness of this matter. 

5.  Defendants’ actions are consonant with the dictates of Executive Order § 7.  

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the “settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the “Fund” component of the “settlement” demonstrate the fact that all Parties were aligned, and ultimately, undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. 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. 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.  

In sum, the facts before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.   

And MSN's coverage is here:

 A Florida federal judge in a blistering order on Monday said that President Donald Trump had filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service "for an improper purpose" — to gain the appearance of "judicial legitimacy" for a controversial settlement with the Justice Department that briefly led to the creation of a $1.8 billion fund to compensate purported victims of prosecutorial misconduct.

Judge Kathleen William referred Trump's lawyer in the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar for consideration on whether Brito should be disciplined in light of the findings in the new order.

Williams also ordered that a copy of her ruling be mailed to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a member, as well as to the District of Columbia Bar, of which Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is a member.

A spokesman for Trump's legal team, which includes Brito, in a statement responding to the order, said, "The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people."

Eleventh Circuit Awards Sanctions Tied to AI Usage

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

The published opinion in Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections begins with "Marion Parnell, Jr., an African-American male represented by counsel," appealing Judge Moreno's grant of summary judgment. Affirming Judge Moreno seemed to be an easy call as that part of the opinion may not even be a full page long. The section dealing with Mr. Parnell's counsel, however, was much longer.

Respondent asked for the appeals court to impose sanctions under its inherent authority because the reply bief "cites two non-existent court opinions and at least five non-existent quotations from our opinions." The Eleventh Circuit requested supplemental briefing on the issue of bad faith and, though Respondent's counsel did respond, they did not explain how the halluciniations appeared in the brief. The court awarded sanctions and held that counsel "has failed to use the required legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably nbecessary for the representation at hand." Ouch.

The moral of the story is one every should know, especially by now, but always carefully verify the use of artificial intelligence. And if you get caught, come clean and beg for mercy. Deal with any malpractice claims at a later date.

Judge William J. Zloch

By John R. Byrne

We're moving into the modern era of our portrait post series. Up this week is Judge William J. Zloch. 

I never tried a case before Judge Zloch but, when I was a prosecutor, I had a couple of cases in front of him where the defendants pled guilty. I remember him asking the defendants, "Why did you do it?" or some variation on that question. That led to some interesting moments and some close calls on getting through the colloquy! 

FBA write up below. 

*****

Judge William J. Zloch was nominated to the district court by President Reagan in 1985 and continues to serve as a senior judge in the district. A South Florida native, Judge Zloch attended the University of Notre Dame, where he had a successful football career, playing both as a wide receiver and quarterback. After college, Judge Zloch served in the U.S. Navy for three years, before returning to Notre Dame for law school. He then worked in private practice in Fort Lauderdale until his judicial appointment. From 2000 to 2007, Judge Zloch served as the chief judge of our district. He presided over several notable cases, including a 2016 class-action claim against the Democratic National Committee that the Committee had worked to tip the scales in primary elections in favor of certain candidates. Wilding, et al. v. DNC Servs. Corp., 2017 WL 6345492 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017). 

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Injunction of Stop WOKE Act

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

The Stop Woke Act, also known as the Individual Freedom Act, seeks to restrict schools and businesses from promoting certain concepts related to race, gender, and social privilege. In an opinion by Judge Grant, joined by Judge Wilson, and with a dissent by Judge Lagoa, the Eleventh Circuit upheld an injunction blocking enforcement of the Stop WOKE Act as to universities.

The majority characterized the government's position as attempting to create a salary-for-speech rule and grappled with how to balance professors' First Amendment rights with the government's interest in regulating work-related communications. The majority argues that the dissent cherry-picks from Supreme Court precedent (as well as from a Third Circuit opinion drafted by then-Judge Alito). The majority instead ultimately finds that "managerial concerns are not at play here" and that "the law is a per se ban on speech the State disagrees with."

Judge Lagoa, in dissent, argues that precedent and the majority establish that the State can restrict a professor's speech and that the State's authority "is at its zenith in public classrooms[.]" She criticizes the majority as creating an unworkable judge-created test reflecting their policy preferences that overly relies on the relatively recent principle of academic freedom which is not enshrined in the First Amendment. Judge Lagoa concludes by saying that "the majority shifts that decision-making authority [to limit what can be taught] from the people to federal judges. The test now is: Does the presiding judge believe that the professor’s viewpoint is within the range of permissible views?"

It will be interesting to see if this one is heard en banc or if it makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Full opinion here.

Court Celebrates America's 250th

By John R. Byrne

The blog turned 21 yesterday, and America turned 250 on Saturday. Two great institutions, just at different stages of life.

The Court celebrated America’s 250th in style last Wednesday in Judge Bloom’s packed courtroom. Judge Bloom opened with thoughtful remarks about what makes our Court so special, including the number of foreign-born judges who have served it, and about the vital role lawyers play in protecting the Constitution.

That set the stage perfectly for Judge Ruiz’s featured lecture on the so-called 18th Grievance in the Declaration of Independence: King George III’s deprivation of the colonists’ right to trial by jury. Judge Ruiz shared powerful quotes from the Founders about that right. Just as powerful, though, were the quotes he shared from real jurors reflecting on their own experiences serving on juries. Judge Ruiz sends a survey to jurors after their service, and their responses were a reminder that, while most people dread jury duty, their service often leaves a profound impact on them. 

All in all, it was a special day, and I’m grateful the Court marked this historic milestone in such a meaningful way. I hope one day future generations will gather to celebrate the blog turning 250, maybe from the comfort of an air-conditioned Mars.

And good luck to the US men’s national team tonight in the World Cup!

Happy Birthday to the Blog

By David Oscar Markus

21 years old!

We can drink now, woohooo! 

I started the blog on July 4 weekend in 2005, calling for the President to appoint a Floridian to the Court (we now have one!). 

Since then we've had 12,850,251views and over 5,000 posts, with over 20,000 comments.

Pretty remarkable, especially because not many blogs are still around. 

I am lucky that we've added some great writers -- John Byrne and Jordi Martinez-Cid.  And we are always lucky to have some great guest posts.

I am also thankful for all of the tips that you send -- from lawyers to judges to politicians.  The blog would not function without your help.

But most of all, thanks for reading.

Let's see if this thing will run for another 20 years!

Thank you,

David 

NY Times v. Sullivan Lives to Fight Another Day

By John R. Byrne

We've blogged several times about Alan Dershowitz's lawsuit against CNN. Judge Singhal granted summary judgment to CNN and the 11th Circuit affirmed. But in their opinions, both Judge Singhal and Judge Lagoa questioned the continuing vitality of the NY Times v. Sullivan standard. But it looks like the standard will live to see another day. This past Monday, the Supreme Court denied Dershowitz’s cert petition. But that denial came with a dissent from Justice Thomas, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Citing Judge Lagoa, among others, Justice Thomas wrote that "The actual malice' standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” You can read the one-page dissent here. 

That sound you heard Monday was the sound of media outlets collectively exhaling!

NOT GUILTY

By Anonymous Court Watcher

Today brought a remarkable result and a hard-fought victory for one (former) criminal defendant and the Federal Public Defender’s Office: a jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts against Harun Abdul-Hamid Yener. 

Mr. Yener, a 30-year-old Coral Springs resident, had been charged in a superseding indictment in connection with an alleged plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange. The charges were as serious as they come, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction; attempting to use an explosive device to damage or destroy a building used in interstate commerce; and threatening to murder federal law enforcement officers. A conviction on these charges would have carried life-altering consequences—and a guidelines life sentence.

The defense centered on a theory of entrapment. That’s the principle that the government cannot induce a person to commit a crime he was not otherwise predisposed to commit—and then turn around and prosecute him for it. The trial team made the case that the conduct at issue originated with the government, not with Mr. Yener.

Mr. Yener was represented at trial before Judge Bloom by Assistant Federal Public Defenders Abby Becker and Victor Van Dyke. Mr. Van Dyke delivered an extraordinarily powerful closing argument, and the jury seems to have agreed with his impassioned presentation. The verdict is a testament to their preparation, advocacy, and unwavering commitment to their client and to the Constitution. This is a particular special win for Mr. Van Dyke, as this trial marks the end of his tenure at the FPD. He's about to begin a new chapter at Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale. 

This outcome is a powerful reminder of why the work of the Federal Public Defender’s Office matters. The presumption of innocence and the right to a vigorous defense are not abstractions. They are the safeguards that produced a just result in this case. Congratulations to Mr. Yener, Abby Becker, Victor Van Dyke, and the entire defense team on a tremendous and well-earned win.