ATLANTA — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on September 29, 2026, declined to immediately suspend sanctions arising from President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service while the appeal continues.
The interim ruling leaves key portions of U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams’s sanctions order in effect for now. It does not decide the full appeal, determine final attorneys’ fees or resolve every request still pending in the district court.
What the appeals court left in place
The district court had found that Trump’s lawsuit and the proposed settlement with agencies controlled by his own administration were improperly collusive and lacked a genuine adversarial dispute. Williams restricted the parties from invoking the agreement as if it carried legal force and referred Trump attorney Alejandro Brito to disciplinary authorities.
Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department asked the Eleventh Circuit to pause those measures. Reporting on the September 29 order states that the panel found the bar-referral issue premature for appellate review and concluded that the challengers had not made the strong showing required to suspend the restriction while the case proceeds.
The panel also paused ongoing district-court fee proceedings during the appeal. That distinction matters: the court denied immediate relief from the sanctions while preserving the orderly review of issues that may still be litigated.
The underlying dispute
Trump, members of his family and business entities sued the IRS and Treasury Department over the disclosure of tax information. The case later produced a proposed settlement that drew objections from 35 former federal judges and other outside participants.
Williams concluded that the arrangement could not be used to create legal rights through a case in which the supposed opposing sides were not genuinely adverse. Her order criticized the handling of the litigation, barred reliance on the agreement and opened the way for professional-discipline and fee questions.
The appellants dispute those conclusions and argue that the restrictions violate constitutional protections and exceed the district court’s authority. Those merits arguments remain for further appellate consideration.
What this ruling does not mean
A denial of a stay is not a final affirmance of every district-court finding. To obtain emergency relief, an applicant ordinarily must show, among other factors, a strong likelihood of success and irreparable harm. The panel’s refusal to pause the order means the applicants did not secure that extraordinary interim relief on the record before it.
Likewise, a judicial finding of bad faith or collusion in civil litigation is not a criminal conviction. The disciplinary referral and any attorneys’ fee award follow their own procedures.
DINA analysis
The case presents an unusual structural problem: how can a federal court evaluate a settlement when the President who brought the lawsuit also exercises authority over the agencies being sued? Courts require a real case or controversy, not an agreement presented for judicial approval by parties whose interests may have converged.
The immediate public-interest issue is narrower than the political noise. The appeals court has preserved the sanctions framework temporarily while the litigation continues. The public record must now show the precise terms of the agreement, the authority claimed for it, the communications that produced it and the legal basis for any benefit affecting public funds or federal tax administration.
Transparency is essential because the dispute concerns not only private litigants but the integrity of federal agencies and the courts. DINA will continue to distinguish interim orders from final judgments and allegations from established findings.
Court records and reporting
- Eleventh Circuit docket, Donald J. Trump et al. v. Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges, No. 26-12692
- Southern District of Florida docket, Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al., No. 1:26-cv-20609
- District-court order addressing the former judges’ motion and the litigation record
- Reuters — Eleventh Circuit declines immediate stay
Source note: This report characterizes the September 29 action as an interim stay decision. It does not treat the panel’s order as a final decision on the merits of the appeal.
Democracy Independent News Association (DINA)
Independent Journalism. Public Records. Accountability.