{"id":156628,"date":"2026-07-13T15:39:49","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T23:39:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/13\/judge-cites-supreme-courts-newfound-unitary-executive-theory-to-blow-up-trumps-irs-settlement-2\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T15:39:49","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T23:39:49","slug":"judge-cites-supreme-courts-newfound-unitary-executive-theory-to-blow-up-trumps-irs-settlement-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/13\/judge-cites-supreme-courts-newfound-unitary-executive-theory-to-blow-up-trumps-irs-settlement-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Cites Supreme Court\u2019s Newfound Unitary Executive Theory To Blow Up Trump\u2019s IRS Settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court just finished explaining that the President is the executive, wholly and thoroughly (except for the Federal Reserve<\/a> for\u2026 reasons). Every agency, every officer, every cabinet secretary is the President wearing a different lanyard, exercising his<\/em> power, removable at his<\/em> pleasure, accountable to him<\/em> and to no other law (except the Federal Reserve because\u2026 well, don\u2019t think about it that much). Donald Trump can personally proclaim \u201cL\u2019Executive, c\u2019est moi\u201d (except for the Federal Res\u2026 look, the Supreme Court really needs you to stop asking questions).<\/p>\n

This was supposed to be excellent news for Donald Trump. But he\u2019s found himself scrambling for an aide to explain what a \u201cpetard\u201d is after a federal judge in Miami hoisted him by it.<\/p>\n

Trump sued the IRS and the Treasury Department for $10 billion<\/a> over the leak of his tax returns. For the record, this is a leak that happened during his first presidency<\/em>. But in his second term, Trump decided he could bilk the taxpayers for some quick cash and the Justice Department \u2014 an institution that historically enjoys independence, but whose acting and presumptive future head has publicly taken the position that Donald Trump has the \u201cright\u201d to direct in its conduct of individual criminal cases<\/a> \u2014 declined the defend the United States government against Trump\u2019s suit and \u201csettled\u201d \u2014 coughing up a $1.776 billion \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund\u201d<\/a> for Trump\u2019s January 6 allies and other flunkies, and a blanket immunity deal. Todd Blanche then went to Congress and claimed that no court could review any of these decisions because \u201cthere is no judge.\u201d<\/p>\n

Except there is a judge and settling a case in a corrupt bargain does not remove the judge from that equation. Judge Kathleen Williams has now declined<\/a> to accept the premise that a lawsuit between a man and himself is, to use the parties\u2019 word, \u201cordinary.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

There is nothing \u201cordinary\u201d about this case; it is the very definition of sui generis<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the past, there might have been a colorable claim that the president in his personal capacity is not the same as the executive agencies he directs. It still would run head first into concerns about the level of independence any agency head could possibly have in such a case \u2014 not to mention the fact that the president in charge during the offending conduct was the same one cosplaying as a plaintiff \u2014 but Judge Williams notes that the Supreme Court just put the kibosh on that:<\/p>\n

\n

Indeed, just recently, the Supreme Court cited Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 133 (1926) as a \u201clandmark decision\u201d and \u201cperhaps our best word on the subject\u201d of whether the President could remove subordinates in government service at will. Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __, slip op. at 16 (2026). Finding that he could, the majority ruled that \u201c[s]ubordinates who exercise the President\u2019s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.\u201d Id. at 36. \u201c[T]hese officers exercise the President\u2019s<\/strong> power, not their own, and thus must be responsible<\/strong> to him.\u201d Id. at 35 (emphasis in original).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Live by the unitary executive theory, die by the unitary executive theory. If the liable agency and the prosecuting entity are Donald Trump, then Donald Trump can\u2019t sue them.<\/p>\n

This is supercharged when the plaintiff is the same guy who sent his minions to the Supreme Court to push \u2014 successfully \u2014 this made-up theory for months.<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that Executive Branch actors \u201cunquestionably exercise[] executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive[,]\u201d and then here, argue that the Parties are sufficiently adverse to establish an actual case or controversy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You do not get to be one indivisible executive on one day and so distinct as to create an adversarial proceeding the next.<\/p>\n

Swatting away the collusion charge, the plaintiffs\u2019 wrote that \u201c[r]egardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.\u201d Which is true, to the extent one accepts that the president can make the executive do whatever he wants and no law can constrain him<\/a>. But that\u2019s not the issue in this case. Because the Trump administration understood that just decreeing that he should steal $10 billion in taxpayer funds might generate some pushback, the decision was made to dress this up as a court case. And as a court case, it has to abide by the rules of the judiciary and presenting a genuine case or controversy is one of the judiciary\u2019s most fundamental rules.<\/p>\n

Not that we needed to get too in the weeds about it, since Trump already publicly announced that this was the whole plan<\/a> back in October. \u201cI\u2019m suing myself,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n

As they say, the lawyer that represents themselves has a fool for a client. Apparently that carries over to fully embodying the Department of Justice.<\/p>\n

So Judge Williams voided the settlement. While the DOJ has already walked back the slush fund part as a bridge too far \u2014 planning to help a child molester pay off victims tends to ruffle feathers<\/a> \u2014 Blanche refuses to issue any binding agreement that he won\u2019t resuscitate it later, making this order significant.<\/p>\n

The judge also referred Trump lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar, denied Daniel Epstein \u2014 a former Trump White House lawyer who signed the deal on Trump\u2019s behalf \u2014 the ability to appear in the Southern District of Florida for a year, and mailed copies of the order to the New York and D.C. bars, where Blanche<\/a> and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward<\/a> already have disciplinary proceedings running.<\/p>\n

The immunity provision shielding Trump, his sons, and his companies from future audits lived in a separate \u201cRelease Order\u201d that Blanche signed alone (as opposed to the settlement signed by \u201cboth\u201d sides), though it referenced the settlement agreement and was explicitly a product of this case.<\/p>\n

So Trump gets benchslapped by his own pet legal theory. <\/p>\n

Though it\u2019s all fun and games until the some Friday evening, when the Supreme Court fires off an unsigned, barely explained shadow docket order inventing a new Sybil Doctrine where the unitary executive is allowed to adopt a multiple personality condition as long as it helps Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

(Opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Lawyer Can\u2019t Avoid Bar Complaint By Declaring \u2018Nevermind That Slush Fund Thing\u2019<\/a>
Capitol Police Officers Sue To Block Trump Slush Fund For Rioters<\/a>
DOJ Tries To End Slush Fund Suit By Telling Judge Brinkema To Get Bent. Fails.<\/a>
The DOJ\u2019s $1.8 Billion Slush Fund Has A Child Molester Problem<\/a>
Is President Trump\u2019s $10B Lawsuit Against The IRS Legitimate Despite Being Both The Plaintiff And The Defendant?<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Judge Cites Supreme Court\u2019s Newfound Unitary Executive Theory To Blow Up Trump\u2019s IRS Settlement<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court just finished explaining that the President is the executive, wholly and thoroughly (except for the Federal Reserve<\/a> for\u2026 reasons). Every agency, every officer, every cabinet secretary is the President wearing a different lanyard, exercising his<\/em> power, removable at his<\/em> pleasure, accountable to him<\/em> and to no other law (except the Federal Reserve because\u2026 well, don\u2019t think about it that much). Donald Trump can personally proclaim \u201cL\u2019Executive, c\u2019est moi\u201d (except for the Federal Res\u2026 look, the Supreme Court really needs you to stop asking questions).<\/p>\n

This was supposed to be excellent news for Donald Trump. But he\u2019s found himself scrambling for an aide to explain what a \u201cpetard\u201d is after a federal judge in Miami hoisted him by it.<\/p>\n

Trump sued the IRS and the Treasury Department for $10 billion<\/a> over the leak of his tax returns. For the record, this is a leak that happened during his first presidency<\/em>. But in his second term, Trump decided he could bilk the taxpayers for some quick cash and the Justice Department \u2014 an institution that historically enjoys independence, but whose acting and presumptive future head has publicly taken the position that Donald Trump has the \u201cright\u201d to direct in its conduct of individual criminal cases<\/a> \u2014 declined the defend the United States government against Trump\u2019s suit and \u201csettled\u201d \u2014 coughing up a $1.776 billion \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund\u201d<\/a> for Trump\u2019s January 6 allies and other flunkies, and a blanket immunity deal. Todd Blanche then went to Congress and claimed that no court could review any of these decisions because \u201cthere is no judge.\u201d<\/p>\n

Except there is a judge and settling a case in a corrupt bargain does not remove the judge from that equation. Judge Kathleen Williams has now declined<\/a> to accept the premise that a lawsuit between a man and himself is, to use the parties\u2019 word, \u201cordinary.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

There is nothing \u201cordinary\u201d about this case; it is the very definition of sui generis<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the past, there might have been a colorable claim that the president in his personal capacity is not the same as the executive agencies he directs. It still would run head first into concerns about the level of independence any agency head could possibly have in such a case \u2014 not to mention the fact that the president in charge during the offending conduct was the same one cosplaying as a plaintiff \u2014 but Judge Williams notes that the Supreme Court just put the kibosh on that:<\/p>\n

\n

Indeed, just recently, the Supreme Court cited Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 133 (1926) as a \u201clandmark decision\u201d and \u201cperhaps our best word on the subject\u201d of whether the President could remove subordinates in government service at will. Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __, slip op. at 16 (2026). Finding that he could, the majority ruled that \u201c[s]ubordinates who exercise the President\u2019s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.\u201d Id. at 36. \u201c[T]hese officers exercise the President\u2019s<\/strong> power, not their own, and thus must be responsible<\/strong> to him.\u201d Id. at 35 (emphasis in original).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Live by the unitary executive theory, die by the unitary executive theory. If the liable agency and the prosecuting entity are Donald Trump, then Donald Trump can\u2019t sue them.<\/p>\n

This is supercharged when the plaintiff is the same guy who sent his minions to the Supreme Court to push \u2014 successfully \u2014 this made-up theory for months.<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that Executive Branch actors \u201cunquestionably exercise[] executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive[,]\u201d and then here, argue that the Parties are sufficiently adverse to establish an actual case or controversy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You do not get to be one indivisible executive on one day and so distinct as to create an adversarial proceeding the next.<\/p>\n

Swatting away the collusion charge, the plaintiffs\u2019 wrote that \u201c[r]egardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.\u201d Which is true, to the extent one accepts that the president can make the executive do whatever he wants and no law can constrain him<\/a>. But that\u2019s not the issue in this case. Because the Trump administration understood that just decreeing that he should steal $10 billion in taxpayer funds might generate some pushback, the decision was made to dress this up as a court case. And as a court case, it has to abide by the rules of the judiciary and presenting a genuine case or controversy is one of the judiciary\u2019s most fundamental rules.<\/p>\n

Not that we needed to get too in the weeds about it, since Trump already publicly announced that this was the whole plan<\/a> back in October. \u201cI\u2019m suing myself,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n

As they say, the lawyer that represents themselves has a fool for a client. Apparently that carries over to fully embodying the Department of Justice.<\/p>\n

So Judge Williams voided the settlement. While the DOJ has already walked back the slush fund part as a bridge too far \u2014 planning to help a child molester pay off victims tends to ruffle feathers<\/a> \u2014 Blanche refuses to issue any binding agreement that he won\u2019t resuscitate it later, making this order significant.<\/p>\n

The judge also referred Trump lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar, denied Daniel Epstein \u2014 a former Trump White House lawyer who signed the deal on Trump\u2019s behalf \u2014 the ability to appear in the Southern District of Florida for a year, and mailed copies of the order to the New York and D.C. bars, where Blanche<\/a> and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward<\/a> already have disciplinary proceedings running.<\/p>\n

The immunity provision shielding Trump, his sons, and his companies from future audits lived in a separate \u201cRelease Order\u201d that Blanche signed alone (as opposed to the settlement signed by \u201cboth\u201d sides), though it referenced the settlement agreement and was explicitly a product of this case.<\/p>\n

So Trump gets benchslapped by his own pet legal theory. <\/p>\n

Though it\u2019s all fun and games until the some Friday evening, when the Supreme Court fires off an unsigned, barely explained shadow docket order inventing a new Sybil Doctrine where the unitary executive is allowed to adopt a multiple personality condition as long as it helps Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

(Opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Lawyer Can\u2019t Avoid Bar Complaint By Declaring \u2018Nevermind That Slush Fund Thing\u2019<\/a>
Capitol Police Officers Sue To Block Trump Slush Fund For Rioters<\/a>
DOJ Tries To End Slush Fund Suit By Telling Judge Brinkema To Get Bent. Fails.<\/a>
The DOJ\u2019s $1.8 Billion Slush Fund Has A Child Molester Problem<\/a>
Is President Trump\u2019s $10B Lawsuit Against The IRS Legitimate Despite Being Both The Plaintiff And The Defendant?<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Judge Cites Supreme Court\u2019s Newfound Unitary Executive Theory To Blow Up Trump\u2019s IRS Settlement<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court just finished explaining that the President is the executive, wholly and thoroughly (except for the Federal Reserve for\u2026 reasons). Every agency, every officer, every cabinet secretary is the President wearing a different lanyard, exercising his power, removable at his pleasure, accountable to him and to no other law (except the Federal Reserve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":156629,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Headshot-300x200-EFI7cq.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156628\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/156629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}