this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026

230 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30385 readers

2367 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

230

U.S. judge voids Trump’s settlement with IRS, refers lawyers for discipline - ("Anti-Weaponization Fund" and sweeping immunity are off the table) (www.reuters.com)

submitted 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) by ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

now of course, I think this means that the lawsuit is back on, but the whole point of the settlement I think was because he knew the lawsuit would never survive a judge...

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 50 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that Trump and the IRS, which he oversees as president, were not truly adverse to each other as is required in civil lawsuits under the U.S. Constitution. Williams referred a Trump lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on ⁠the settlement to state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.

"This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute," Williams wrote. The judge said it was instead an attempt 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."

Williams' order bars any of the parties in the case, including Trump, his adult sons and his namesake company, from referring to the settlement or citing any of its terms in future legal proceedings, a move that could nullify the portion of the agreement barring the IRS from pursuing any audits ‌into past ⁠tax claims involving Trump or his businesses.

This is the minimum amount we should expect from the rule of law, but I'll take whatever wins we can get. Good for this judge for stating the obvious, which apparently only heroes have the courage to do in 2026.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

now of course, I think this means that the lawsuit is back on,

The lawsuit now has a formal judicial finding that it is not a case or controversy. Under the constitution, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over this so-called "lawsuit".

Nothing can happen with this lawsuit unless that finding is reversed.

[–] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Courts usually don't reverse findings of fact do they? I mean, who knows with this SCOTUS, they're bought and paid for....

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The plaintiffs are always welcome to motion to reconsider. That usually doesn't work.

They can also appeal to the appeals court. Once there the fact findings need "clear error" to be reversed. But this decision also interprets the law... The meanings of "case" and "controversy" in this context. The legal interpretations are reviewed "de novo," meaning starting fresh all over again.

My guess is there's a lot of room for higher courts to reverse some parts of this decision. It's one thing for the court to decline to enforce the "settlement.". And it's another thing for the court to take positive steps to stop the "settlement" from being implemented.

Among other things, the order claims to enjoin Donald Trump personally from calling the settlement "agreement" a "settlement." That could be a violation of his free speech rights, perhaps. Or it could be an impermissible injunction against a sitting President (i.e. if this "lawsuit" gets twisted from personal business into an "official act").

A big problem with the "agreement" if the "lawsuit" stays dead is that Trump doesn't give up anything else to get all these benefits besides dropping the "lawsuit." In contract law there has to be a consideration from both sides. That's why you sometimes see property being sold for $1 instead of being given away. That could be a hook for a future DOJ to get rid of their side of the agreement.

[–] homes@piefed.world 21 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 10 hours ago

The movement of her hands triggers me.

[–] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If any of the cultist actually cared about government overreach, or tax payer protection, this would be what they would riot over.

[–] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 7 points 12 hours ago

I think the whole purpose of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" was to buy their silence on the rest of it.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 6 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Rule 1 says to use the original article title.

"U.S. judge voids Trump's settlement with IRS, refers lawyers for discipline"

[–] DrakeAlbrecht@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.

[–] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 6 points 13 hours ago

Fixed it, best of both worlds. :)