This week, the Justice Department announced that President Trump intended to settle his unprecedented $10 billion lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service with an equally unprecedented agreement. The deal mandates the creation of nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended to use taxpayer dollars to redress alleged claims of “lawfare.” There is widespread concern that claims would likely be filed by Trump allies and even January 6 rioters, something the Justice Department did not rule out. The fund quickly prompted intense political pushback, including among Republican senators, to the point that it helped derail a planned vote on a spending bill on Thursday.

It also gave rapid rise to legal challenges. On Wednesday, officers who fended off rioters on January 6 filed the first lawsuit to block the fund. And 93 House Democrats, represented by former New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin and his firm Platkin LLP, filed an amicus brief challenging the settlement as unconstitutional. But will this be enough to block payments from going out? I spoke with Platkin about the legal recourse to the Trump administration’s brazen new plan.

You are representing 93 House Democrats in a brief challenging the settlement, arguing that the lawsuit runs afoul of Article III of the U.S. Constitution and that Trump’s “blatant self-dealing makes this matter a collusive suit.” Could you walk me through your position? For people to get into court, there has to be an actual conflict between them. They actually have to disagree. Like, you can’t call somebody up and say, “Hey, I’m going to sue you. You’re going to settle this. Let’s go in and do it together and it’ll sort of work out for everyone.” That’s a collusive suit, which is illegal under our Constitution. So, in order for a court to have jurisdiction, there has to be actual adversity and, without that actual adversity, the Department of Justice can’t just settle a suit.

That prevents you from doing exactly what the president did, essentially somebody with a position of power or connections calling up the government and saying, “Hey, I want you to pay me. I want you to do something. I’ll just sue you, you’ll settle it out, and we’ll be done.” That’s what happened here, and that’s why we weighed in. But the 93 members weighed in to say that the judge, even if they settled the case, could have asked some tough questions of the parties.

And Trump’s move to dismiss the case came just days before a key deadline in the IRS case where the president’s legal team and the DoJ needed to present arguments proving the court had jurisdiction. Nothing about this case........

© Daily Intelligencer