Related Judge Denounces Trump’s I.R.S. Suit as Improper Exercise in Self-Dealing Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2026 Page 1 of 56 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 26-20609-CV-WILLIAMS PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs, V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., Defendants. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs' response to the Court's May 29, 2026, Order on the non-party movants' Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order, or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae (DE 89).1 On May 27, 2026, thirty-five non-party movants filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (DE 63), in which they requested this Court to set aside its dismissal pursuant to Rule 60 because the case, and its purported settlement, is “a fraud on the Court." (Id. at 6). The non-party movants highlighted the atypical way the litigation had unfolded and argued that the purported settlement reached in this matter "is a product of collusion." (Id. at 9). In light of those serious allegations and the Court's own view of the unusual circumstances of the case, the Court entered an Order on May 29, 2026, (the "May 29 Order”) (DE 65), directing Plaintiffs to detail their position as to various issues, "including (1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and 1 Throughout this Order, the Court uses the CM/ECF pagination rather than the document pagination. Page 1 of 56 Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2026 Page 2 of 56(3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the 'victim of a fraud." (DE 65 at 3). On June 12, 2026, Plaintiffs responded to the May 29 Order. (DE 89). The non-party movants filed a reply on June 19, 2026. (DE 94). In the very first paragraph of the
Fuente: NYT — Ver nota original
