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.
This case was a nullity and cannot support any "settlement"
= new reply since forum marked as read
