Judge declines action on 'weaponization' fund while warning DOJ

A federal judge in Washington agreed with the Trump administration that a legal fight over a controversial $1.8 billion fund for alleged political "weaponization" victims was likely obsolete in light of U.S. assurances that the plan won't go forward.

However, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon asked probing questions of a Justice Department lawyer about why top officials wouldn't formally withdraw the fund proposal in writing. Leon denied a request for an immediate restraining order by the government watchdog group that sued, but the case remains active for now.

Leon ended the hearing with a warning to the government not to go back on its statements.

"Don't play possum with this court," he said, invoking an idiom that refers to an animal pretending to be dead or asleep in order to deceive.

The government had argued that public statements from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the fund plan won't proceed and representations to that effect from department lawyers in court were enough confirmation and that there was no longer a live issue for the court.

Leon repeatedly asked department attorney Andrew Block why officials wouldn't formally withdraw an internal directive creating the fund if it wouldn't happen. Block said he did not know. Block also said comments by President Donald Trump expressing support for the fund didn't contradict Blanche's assurances that the government wouldn't move forward with the plan.

The case before Leon was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. It is one of at least five lawsuits filed to challenge the fund after it was announced in May as part of a settlement to resolve President Donald Trump's $10 billion case against the Internal Revenue Service.

The plan faced rare pushback from Republicans as well as from Democrats who slammed the proposal as a "slush fund" for the president's allies and supporters. Blanche testified before Congress earlier this month that the department is "not moving forward with the fund, period" but said at the time that it wasn't necessary to put that commitment in writing.

CREW President Donald Sherman said in a statement that although Leon denied their request for a short-term block of the fund, the judge "made clear that if the government goes back on its commitment to shut down the fund that the court will hold it accountable."

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The other four lawsuits challenging the fund were still active as of Wednesday. A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, who temporarily blocked officials from taking steps to launch the fund shortly after it was announced is scheduled to hold a hearing on Friday. The challengers in that case have asked her for permission to seek evidence from the administration about the fund and to delay the hearing by several weeks if she agrees.

Separate from those suits, a federal judge in Miami is considering what she described as "grievous" allegations raised by a group of former federal judges over the arrangement. The judges suggested that the settlement reached between Trump and his administration was the result of a "fraud on the court" because he effectively controlled both sides. Trump's personal attorneys are due to respond to those accusations on Friday.

The agreement to settle Trump's case against the IRS also included a bar against audits of past tax filings by Trump, his family members and his businesses and other categories of government investigations. Blanche has said that the government would continue to honor that part of the deal.

CREW's lawyers argued that Blanche's statements and the government's representations to the judge that the fund wouldn't go forward weren't sufficient to end the case. They highlighted a section of the settlement agreement text stating that it could be changed "only with the written agreement of the parties" and said that the administration hadn't provided any such documents.

The Justice Department argued that the organization wanted the court "to have the last word in a political debate" but that was improper because there was no longer any "case or controversy" for the judge to rule on. They also pushed back on the notion that the lawsuit had merit even if it could go forward.

The case is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Justice Department, 26-cv-1789, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.