Maryland AG Joins Multistate Coalition Questioning $1.776 Billion Trump v. IRS Settlement

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, urging the court to thoroughly examine the circumstances surrounding a purported settlement agreement in the case of Trump v. IRS. The coalition argues that the lawsuit and subsequent settlement were orchestrated to provide financial benefits and legal immunity to President Trump and his family at the expense of taxpayers.

The legal action originated in January 2026 when President Trump, his family, and his business organization filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. The lawsuit stemmed from claims related to the disclosure of President Trump’s tax return information by a government contractor. The District Court had initially raised concerns about the potential lack of genuine dispute between the parties involved and questioned its own jurisdiction over the matter. However, shortly before legal arguments were due on this jurisdictional issue, President Trump voluntarily withdrew his claims. This dismissal was followed by a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, which, according to the coalition’s brief, grants President Trump and his family immunity from any investigations or prosecutions concerning their past conduct. Furthermore, the agreement mandates the establishment of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization” fund.

The amicus brief contends that the lawsuit and the subsequent settlement represent a collusive effort to circumvent constitutional limitations on presidential authority, all under the guise of a judicial resolution. The coalition of state Attorneys General asserts that this arrangement was designed to create a taxpayer-funded windfall for President Trump and his family, undermining the integrity of the legal system. Prior to the abrupt dismissal of the complaint, the District Court had acknowledged a fundamental question regarding the case’s jurisdiction, particularly in light of a lawsuit brought by the President against agencies that operate under his direction. The court had ordered the parties to address whether a legitimate case or controversy existed.

The District Court is reportedly considering reopening the Trump v. IRS case under Rule 60, which allows for the setting aside of a judgment and the reopening of a case if fraud or deception has been perpetrated on the court by the involved parties. In their brief, Attorney General Brown and the coalition, as chief legal officers of their respective states, emphasize that the self-serving and potentially corrupt nature of the settlement agreement is contrary to the responsibilities inherent in their roles and to the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The coalition points to the timing of the lawsuit’s dismissal and the unusual aspects of the settlement as evidence of a collusive arrangement aimed at bypassing constitutional checks on the Executive Branch’s power.

The brief further highlights that the settlement appears to violate basic tenets of contract and settlement law. It is argued that the terms are not aligned with the actual value of President Trump’s claims, which the coalition suggests are legally deficient. Additionally, the settlement may exceed the legal and policy boundaries of the Department of Justice’s authority to enter into such agreements. The coalition emphasizes that this type of collusion between a President and an executive department he oversees erodes the separation of powers, diminishes public trust in the judicial system, challenges the powers exercised by state Attorneys General, and ultimately weakens the rule of law. For residents of Maryland and other participating states, this action by their Attorneys General signifies a commitment to upholding legal and ethical standards in government, even when faced with powerful political figures. The outcome of the court’s consideration could have implications for taxpayer funds and the oversight of executive power.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

Video Spotlight