The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

The Art of the Deal

The Trump/DOJ Settlement Agreement: -- "Utterly stupid, morally wrong"

David Post | 5.23.2026 11:47 AM

Just when you think there is no further outrage that the President of the United States can perpetrate to top all of the preceding outrages, along comes the Great Settlement Agreement of 2026.

Read it for yourself.  It's only three pages long.  It's titled "Settlement Agreement." It is, however, not a "Settlement Agreement" within the usual and ordinary meaning of that term. You can call a duck a goose, but it's still a duck.

Let's review how we got here.  Trump, on January 26, 2026 (while serving as President) filed suit in federal court (SD FL) against the IRS, alleging negligent conduct by an IRS contractor which led to the release of the confidential tax records of millions of people (including Trump), and seeking $10 billion in damages.

This claim is nonsensical and worthless; a reasonable valuation of this claim - i.e., the amount a reasonable person in the claim valuation business would have offered to buy this claim were he allowed to do so - is $0.00.  You can't sue yourself; the President runs the IRS; he can fire any or all of the IRS employees, and he can determine IRS policies (including its litigation policies); the President and an Executive Agency wholly within the scope of Presidential control cannot be legal "adversaries." So there is no Article III "case or controversy" where the President is on one side of the case, and the IRS is on the other, and without a case or controversy the court has to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

It would be a good question for a Con Law I exam. The short answer portion; it's too easy for a longer essay.

Trump's lawsuit was going to be dismissed. Everyone - you, me, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Donald Trump - knew that.

At the court's first hearing back in February, District Judge Williams noted the "outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed" between the "parties," and requested that the "parties" brief the question for her.

No briefing from either one of the "parties," interestingly enough, was ever forthcoming on the question.[1]

There things remained until May 16, when Trump filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice."[2] The court, in accordance with ordinary practice (and with the governing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)), dismissed Trump's claim with prejudice, noting further that "once a notice of dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1) is filed, the Court is stripped of jurisdiction."

So that's that for Trump's so-called case.

Here's an excerpt from the court's final "Order Closing Case" [available here]:

"Plaintiffs state that they are voluntarily dismissing the instant litigation with prejudice. Because the dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the claims regarding the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiffs' tax returns, the Court cancels all deadlines, including the date that the Parties were required to submit briefing as to whether an actual case........

© Reason.com