Amici Step In Because DOJ Has No Intention of Defending IRS Against Trump

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law

If you read only *one* document this week in the whole Trump v. IRS thing, make it this one, because *this* short, 6-page court document lays *everything* out so clearly (which I tried to do in a series of posts over the last two days, but there is *so* much misinformation out there that even 4 posts in 24 hours still couldn't get through the noise). THIS document, filed at the request of the Court by amici ("friends of the Court") explains *everything*. With this document you will be prepared to point out to all of your friends *exactly* why, no, even though Blanche put something in writing, that immunity deal *still* isn't actually a thing.

And, in fact, here is a good time to point something out again:

The *entire* thing about Blanche putting something in writing was that Tillis, Thomas, and others wanted him to put in writing that he *wasn't going to *re-open* the slush fund after this was all over*. THAT was it! Instead, he barely said that, *and* he tried slipping in immunity from the IRS for Trump again. So now people are talking about how Blanche "scaled back the immunity" - THE IMMUNITY IS NOT A THING. IT IS ILLEGAL. PERIOD. THE COURT HAS SAID IT'S ILLEGAL. FEDERAL LAW SAYS IT'S ILLEGAL. Blanche "scaling it back" is like Blanche issuing a statement saying "Ok, only half of the moon is made of cheese". IT DOESN'T MAKE THE MOON CHEESE!

Ok, that out of the way, this document filed by amici happened because *the Court* asked the amici to *step in as defense for the IRS* because the DOJ wasn't going to defend the IRS because, you know, Blanche and Trump's DOJ are in *collusion* in this case. The amici in this case are attorneys from three law firms: Munger Tolles & Olson, Debevoise & Plimpton, and Selendy Gay.

Let that sink in for a moment. In a lawsuit in which we have *already* seen many unusual things (plaintiff and defendant colluding *on the same side*, plaintiff dismissing *with* prejudice, defendant purporting to grant plaintiff total immunity from audit, Court deeming a *President* to have been "acting in bad faith" and *colluding*, now we see a judge appointing amici to step in and defend the defendant because the agency CHARGED WITH DEFENDING FEDERAL AGENCIES (that'd be the DOJ)...well... isn't.

Here are excerpts from just the first few paragraphs of this document - again, I urge you all to read the document, which I have made available to *everyone* at the link below (you *may* need to create a Substack account if you don't already have one, but I promise that is free):

"On January 29, 2026, Plaintiffs President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization filed this lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consent motion extending Defendants time to respond to the Complaint while the parties participated in discussions designed to resolve this matter and to avoid protracted litigation. Based on concerns about the relationship between the parties and, specifically, President Trumps ostensibly . . . direct, unassailable control over Defendants this Court appointed amici curiae to assist the Court in identifying the applicable law governing an analysis of its subject matter jurisdiction.

Four days later, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The Department of Justice then issued a press release announcing the parties had reached a settlement. The terms of the purported settlement including a formal apology from the United States and the creation of an Anti-Weaponization Fund in the amount of $1.776 billion dollars, which was reportedly intended to provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of individuals who suffered weaponization and lawfare. The day after the dismissal, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order referencing the settlement agreement and releasing the President and his affiliates from a broad range of claims related to this lawsuit, Lawfare and/or Weaponization, and other matters currently pending or that could be pending before federal agencies."

See? I promise that if you read this (again short, 6-page) document you will have a clearer understanding of this situation than 90% of the people out there, *including* those social media accounts who haven't been reading the court documents. :~)

Everybody: the document is included below.

My investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:

- Join Notes from the Front: It's just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that below where it says “Upgrade”.

- Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/

- Share this post

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes a “*", because I used so darned many of them in this, what’s one more? It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone putting an asterisk in the comments! ;~)

Trump Irs Amici Appellate

215KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download