Is it me...

 ... or does it seem like every case involves Trump in some way.  

By David Oscar Markus 

The Trump/IRS case, which through a settlement established the "weaponization fund" or "slush fund" depending on who you ask, as well as immunity from audit, has been subject to *a lot* of criticism.  So much criticism that 35 former federal judges urged Judge Williams to reopen the case to examine the terms of the settlement.  (One of those judges is former SDFLA judge Ursula Ungaro).

Judge Williams agreed to do so. The must-read order is here.  

The NY Times covers the story:

Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump’s efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit — chief among them, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official in the department.

In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was “empowered to investigate serious misconduct” in any case before her, and ordered Mr. Trump’s lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because “the court was the victim of a fraud.”

She also wanted Mr. Trump’s lawyers to respond to the question of whether he had colluded with his own government to settle the case “to avoid judicial scrutiny.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Judge Williams pointed to reporting by The New York Times that described how the I.R.S. had prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining defenses against the suit that the Justice Department did not take up in court.

***

The $1.8 billion fund has faced separate legal headwinds. A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia temporarily blocked the Trump administration from taking any further steps to set it up or disburse money from it. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including many Republicans, have also been critical of the fund, which upended G.O.P. plans to pass a party-line bill funding immigration enforcement efforts last week.

Mr. Trump, along with two of his sons and the Trump family business, first sued the I.R.S. in January, claiming they were owed at least $10 billion because a former contractor at the agency had leaked their tax returns (and hundreds of others) during the president’s first term in the White House. The Trumps claimed that the I.R.S. should have done more to prevent the contractor, Charles Littlejohn, from disclosing tax information to The New York Times and ProPublica.

Mr. Trump’s suit, as I.R.S. officials laid out in their memo and other lawyers have noted, had clear legal flaws. Potential defenses against it include that it was filed after the statute of limitations, and that it incorrectly faulted the I.R.S. for the actions of Mr. Littlejohn, previously a contractor employed by Booz Allen Hamilton. But the Justice Department never made an attempt to contest Mr. Trump’s suit. No government lawyer entered an appearance in the case.

That has fueled criticism that the deal the Justice Department struck with Mr. Trump was not a genuine attempt to avoid a loss on the merits to the president in court, but instead a scheme to provide him and his political allies with public benefits.

 

Reflections on Judge King's Life

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

On Wednesday, there was a Celebration of Life for Judge James Lawrence King. His long and storied life is difficult to summarize but perhaps the fact that best encapsulates his standing in this community is that he was blessed to serve the people and administer justice in a building named after for many years. Hard to imagine that even many legends get that honor.

Part of his legacy are his clerks, among them: Ricardo M. Martínez-Cid, Yara Lorenzo Klukas, Mark Heise, Gera Peoples, Jennifer Olmedo-Rodriguez, and Jose Ortiz among many other well-respected lawyers in our community. Two of them, Peter Klock and Richard Rosengarten, attended the Celebration of Life and were kind enough to share what happened that day and their personal reflections on Judge King and what he meant to South Florida. Their writing can be accessed here.

To Recuse or Not to Recuse?

By John R. Byrne

You're a lawyer and you represent Party B in a lawsuit filed by Party A. You later become a judge. Can you now impartially adjudicate Party A's different lawsuit against Party C?

When you strip away the high-profile names of the people/parties involved, that's the essence of the recusal issue in Trump v. British Broadcasting Corp. (better known as the "BBC"). 

Just recently, Law 360 reported on President Trump's motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Lett from his lawsuit against the BBC. His basis? He argues that, prior to taking the bench, Judge Lett represented a company that Trump had sued in the SDFLA. That company, Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd., was one of the defendants in Trump v. Clinton (the case, not the election). Trump argues that Judge Lett's defense of Orbis right before she took the bench creates at least the appearance of impropriety such that she should not be handling discovery disputes in his case. The BBC says that Judge Lett previously represented a different party (Orbis, not the BBC) in litigation that is unrelated to the current litigation and that the motion is just a stall tactic. 

You can read the motion to recuse here and the BBC's response here. 

A federal district judge had sex in chambers and got reprimanded... (UPDATED)

...but the reprimand is private!  (UPDATED with the potential identity of the judge below).

By David Oscar Markus* 

The Eleventh Circuit issued a private reprimand to a sitting United States District Judge after a Special Committee investigation confirmed that the judge had engaged in a multi-year extramarital affair with a uniformed local police officer, including sexual intercourse in the judge's chambers during business hours, within earshot of law clerks.

The order is here. It is worth reading in full.

The affair ran roughly from late 2022 through October 2025. The officer, a high-ranking commander at a local police department since 1998, made frequent lunchtime visits to the judge's chambers in uniform, signing in on law enforcement logs. At least three former law clerks heard sounds consistent with sexual activity coming from the judge's closed office. One clerk had to leave the building. Another described the chambers as having an "eggshell culture." The Special Committee confirmed the visits through courthouse security footage and sign-in logs, interviewed six former clerks, and even removed a sofa cushion from the judge's office and transported it to an out-of-state laboratory for acid phosphate testing. (The test came back negative.)

When Chief Judge Pryor first wrote to the judge in September 2025, the judge denied everything. Called the allegations "outrageous" and "baseless." Blamed the reporting clerk for retaliating over a phone-use reprimand. Then, eleven days later, the judge hired a lawyer and admitted the affair and sex in chambers. By the time the judge came clean, the committee had already reviewed footage, interviewed five clerks, inspected the chambers layout, and driven a sofa cushion to a laboratory. The false statements were themselves a separate misconduct finding.

The judge also attended a District Attorney's campaign victory party, then reportedly joked to summer interns the next morning about having "too many martinis" the night before a criminal hearing. That was finding number two.

The court issued a private reprimand. Plus: written apologies to all six clerks. No eligibility to serve as chief judge. No Judicial Conference committee service, indefinitely. The judge keeps the seat and continues to hear cases.

The Special Committee considered a public reprimand. Mitigating factors: eventual candor, termination of the affair, and what the committee called "otherwise exemplary service to the court." That was enough to keep it private.

The order uses gender-neutral language throughout. Not a single pronoun for the judge, the clerks, or the officer. The identity is not public.

What the order does tell us: this is a sitting district judge, not a chief judge (the chief of the judge's district blew the whistle). The judge is a former prosecutor, friends with a sitting DA since 1999.  Handles all criminal cases personally without law clerk assistance. Uses staggered two-year clerk terms.

The DA victory party is probably the most identifiable data point. The Special Committee found news coverage, including video and photos, of a campaign event with martini glasses. That is a specific, locatable event in a specific 11th Circuit city. Someone with local knowledge could likely find it.

As of today, no outlet has publicly named the judge.

*I never used to put the byline on my posts but decided to do so because I want it to be clear it's me writing as I don't want John or Jordi getting any heat for what I write. 

 UPDATE --  Marco Polo says the judge is Eleanor Ross out of Atlanta (NDGA).  

Alex Saab: Former Venezuelan Minister of Industry To Be Tried in the District

By Jordi C. Martinez-Cid

Alex Saab, a long-time ally of Nicholas Maduro, was extradited from Venezuela and had his first appearance before Magistrate Judge Fulgueira Elfenbein last week. She ordered him to be detained without bond.

Though I write first appearance, this is not his first run-in with our court. Saab previously faced an indictment for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Media outlets report that the charges were dropped as part of a deal with the Maduro regime, which may be accurate, but the government's motion to dismiss in that case mentions a full pardon granted by President Biden. Judge Scola ended up dismissing that case on the same day as the motion.

With Maduro out of power and Alex Saab seemingly on the outs with the current powers that be, Venezuela deported him. Mr. Saab now faces money laundering charges stemming from his alleged involvement with Venezuelan food and oil contracts. Should be an interesting case to follow given the geopolitical ramifications and the previous factual and procedural history.

Big Victory at the Supreme Court for Havana Docks

By John R. Byrne

We’ve blogged several times about the ongoing litigation between Havana Docks and various cruise lines. To bring everyone up to speed, the Helms-Burton Act makes it unlawful to “traffic” in private property confiscated by the Cuban government. Havana Docks sued several cruise lines, arguing that they used its confiscated docks to bring tourists to Cuba. Havana Docks won a roughly $400 million judgment at the trial court level before Judge Bloom. But the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the company’s concession to operate the docks had expired before the alleged trafficking occurred.

There was a dissent. Judge Brasher said the expiration date didn’t matter. What mattered was that the cruise lines trafficked in the confiscated property (the docks themselves).

Yesterday, the Supreme Court weighed in. It agreed with Judge Brasher and Judge Bloom and convincingly so (the vote was 8-1). Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that the Act targets the use of confiscated property itself, not merely the specific property interest the plaintiff once held. Cuba’s 1960 takeover “tainted” the physical docks as confiscated property, and the cruise lines later used those same docks commercially without Havana Docks’ authorization. 

Justice Kagan dissented. She thought the Eleventh Circuit majority had it right. Havana Docks owned only a time-limited concession (not the docks themselves). And because the concession expired in 2004, which was years before the cruise lines’ use of the docks, there was no trafficking. 

You can read the whole thing here. 

This was a big win for the law firm of Colson Hicks Eidson and the team of Bob Martinez, Stephanie Casey, Tom Kroeger, and Zach Lipshultz. Speaking for the team, Bob Martinez gave this quote to the SDFLA Blog:

“We are gratified by the Court’s decision. Havana Docks has waited 66 years for justice and today marks one step closer to obtaining it. No one should be allowed to profit from and subsidize Raúl Castro and the Cuban military by doing business with that brutal dictatorship.”

And with that, Bob dropped the mic.

I hope everyone enjoys the Memorial Day weekend.

Two big SDFLA indictments

Everyone has seen the Raul Castro news.  But another case -- that of a Ft. Pierce AUSA -- is also making headlines.  Here's your summary of the two cases:

Raúl Castro

Castro, 94, of along with five co-defendants — Lorenzo Alberto Perez-Perez, Emilio José Palacio Blanco, José Fidel Gual Barzaga, Raúl Simanca Cardenas, and Luis Raúl Gonzalez-Pardo Rodriguez — for their alleged roles in the February 24, 1996 shoot-down of two unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue over international waters. 

The charges include four counts of murder, two counts of destruction of aircraft, and conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals. The four men killed were Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre Jr., Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales, including three U.S. citizens.

Castro served as Cuba's defense minister at the time of the shoot-down. The indictment alleges he had authorized the use of deadly force against the Brothers to the Rescue. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the charges, saying: "For the first time in nearly 70 years, senior leadership of the Cuban regime has been charged in the United States for alleged acts of violence resulting in the deaths of American citizens."

The indictment and DOJ press release are here.

Judge Seitz drew the case, but that's before she retired, so I'm assuming it will be reassigned. 

News coverage: Reuters/CNBC | CBS News | NBC Miami | CNN

---

Former SDFLA Prosecutor Indicted

The other big indictment today is Carmen Mercedes Lineberger, 62, the former Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Fort Pierce division of the U.S. Attorney's office.  She was indicted on four counts: two counts of theft of government property, destruction/alteration of records in a federal investigation, and concealment/removal of public records.

The government alleges that in late 2025, Lineberger compiled portions of an internal DOJ memorandum and transmitted messages from her government email to her personal Hotmail account with the subject line "chocolate cake recipe." She is also accused of accessing an email containing a Volume II Report in December 2025 and sharing it to her personal Gmail account with the file renamed "Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf." 

The indictment notes that Judge Cannon had issued an order in January 2025 regarding the report that prohibited any distribution or disclosure outside DOJ. Lineberger allegedly transmitted it anyway. 

Lineberger was in a supervisory role at the Fort Pierce office during the time of the investigation and prosecution of Trump, and while she was not on the special counsel team, the U.S. Attorney's Office played a supporting role to parts of Jack Smith's work, including before the special counsel was appointed and after the search of Mar-a-Lago in 2022. 

She was arraigned before Chief Magistrate Judge Matthewman in West Palm Beach. The case is being prosecuted by AUSA Christie Utt from the Northern District of Florida, brought in as a special prosecutor to avoid conflicts.

The indictment is here. 

News coverage: CNN

New Emoluments Clause Case Filed in the SDFLA

A new 57-page complaint landed in the Southern District of Florida last week, and it's an interesting one.

The case is Sistrunk Seeds Inc. v. Trump, Case No. 1:26-cv-23365, filed May 13 by Jerry Greenberg, Dan Gelber, and Shane Grannum of Gelber Schachter & Greenberg and the Constitutional Accountability Center. The plaintiffs are two Downtown Miami condo owners, a Miami Dade College student, and a nonprofit urban farm co-founded by historian Dr. Marvin Dunn.

The claim: Florida violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause by gifting a 2.63-acre waterfront parcel in Downtown Miami — previously owned by MDC — to President Trump's library foundation. For free. The land sits next to the Freedom Tower. Experts say it's worth north of $300 million. The county appraiser says $67 million. Either way, it went for $0.

The defendants include the President (official capacity), the Trump Library Foundation, Governor DeSantis, AG Uthmeier, CFO Ingoglia, Commissioner Simpson, the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and the entire MDC Board.

The constitutional hook is Article II, § 1, cl. 7, which says the President "shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." Plaintiffs argue the land transfer is a textbook state gift to a sitting president in violation of that clause.

The complaint cites a bunch of Trump's own words, including: "I don't believe in building libraries or museums... it's most likely going to be a hotel." The case is assigned to Judge Ruiz.  Coverage from the Miami Herald, CNN, NBC News, and The Hill. 

Meantime, yesterday, six days after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones posted a photo of the Freedom Tower on X with the caption: "South Florida knows what this building stands for." The Freedom Tower, of course, sits directly adjacent to the MDC Parcel at the heart of this case. But the post likely has to do with the press conference that JRQ has scheduled with Todd Blanche, Ashley Moody, and James Uthmeier announcing the indictment of Raul Castro of Cuba.