11th Circuit Upholds Sanctions on Trump Lawyers in IRS Case, Rejecting Attempts to Evade Accountability
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to halt sanctions on Donald Trump's attorneys, maintaining a district court order that curbs misleading references to a questionable IRS settlement.
In a significant rebuke to the culture of impunity surrounding Donald Trump and his legal team, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied a request by Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to suspend sanctions imposed by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams. These sanctions arose from a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service, culminating in a settlement that Judge Williams found to be improperly collusive—hardly surprising, given Trump’s notorious disregard for ethical boundaries while in office. The judge’s order referred Trump’s personal attorney, Alejandro Brito, to Florida disciplinary authorities and barred Trump, his adult sons, and his company from mischaracterizing the agreement as a legitimate court settlement or exploiting its terms in future legal proceedings.
Despite attempts by Trump’s counsel and even the Justice Department to frame the restrictions as violations of First Amendment rights, the appellate panel saw through these arguments. The court determined that the referral of Brito was not a final order subject to appeal and that the limitations on referencing the settlement were narrowly tailored, thus not infringing on constitutional protections.
"The president's lawsuit against the IRS was an appropriate means to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable," a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team claimed, continuing the pattern of self-serving rhetoric.
The Justice Department, notably, did not respond to requests for comment. The case originated from Trump’s baseless lawsuit against the IRS, alleging inadequate protection of his tax records during his first term. In May, the parties reached a backroom agreement to dismiss the lawsuit in exchange for immunity on past tax claims and a proposed $1.8 billion fund for Trump’s allies—a provision that was only dropped after rare bipartisan opposition.
The appellate court highlighted that neither Trump’s lawyers nor the Justice Department could provide any evidence that their conduct was non-collusive, underscoring the persistent lack of transparency and accountability in Trump’s orbit.