Case: Gordon v. Blanche
1:26-cv-01907 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: June 1, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is one of multiple challenges to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion program intended to compensate individuals allegedly harmed by government "weaponization," alleging that it unlawfully uses federal funds to compensate purported victims of governmental "lawfare," including January 6 defendants.
On June 1, 2026, two former federal prosecutors who served in the Capitol Siege Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC) and prosecuted individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, Michael M. Gordon, a former Senior Trial Counsel who was fired in June 2025, and Michael J. Romano, who served as Deputy Chief of the Section and resigned under pressure in March 2025, alleged that the Trump Administration's characterization of the January 6 prosecutions as examples of government "weaponization" damaged their professional reputations, employment prospects, and personal security.
The lawsuit challenges the creation of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," a $1.776 billion compensation program established through a settlement agreement resolving Trump v. IRS. According to the complaint, the Anti-Weaponization Fund was created to compensate individuals who claimed they were harmed by government "lawfare" or "weaponization," including persons prosecuted in connection with January 6. Notably, the Anti-Weaponization Fund was financed through a $1.776 billion transfer from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation used to pay certain judgments and settlements against the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that the Anti-Weaponization Fund exceeded statutory authority governing the Judgment Fund, was established through unlawful agency action, and violated constitutional provisions including the Appropriations Clause, Appointments Clause, separation-of-powers principles, the First Amendment, equal-protection principles, and Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint also asserted five claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as well as constitutional and ultra vires claims. The plaintiffs sued the Acting Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chief Executive Officer of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the DOJ, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the IRS, and sought declaratory relief, vacatur, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
This case was assigned to District Judge Richard J. Leon. The plaintiffs filed notices designating the case as related to both Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Department of Justice and Dunn v. Trump, which were already pending before the same judge. Service was completed in June 2026, setting an August 9, 2026 deadline for the federal defendants to respond.
On July 13, 2026, in the underlying Trump v. IRS litigation, District Judge Kathleen M. Williams issued a sanctions order finding that the case had been brought for an improper purpose and that the parties were never genuinely adverse. She prohibited the parties from relying on or citing the purported settlement agreement in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, or other official proceeding, but expressly declined to resolve whether they could enforce it as a private agreement.
After Acting Attorney General Blanche testified before Congress in June 2026 that the DOJ would not proceed with the Fund, the government took the position that challenges to the Fund were no longer justiciable. On August 2, 2026, Blanche signed an order stating that his May 18, 2026 order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund was rescinded and would have no force or effect. An accompanying, unsigned DOJ statement asserted that no members had been appointed, no funds transferred, no claims process established, and no claims paid, and that there was no Fund. The order expressly cited this case, along with the parallel challenges in Floyd v. Department of Justice, Dunn v. Trump, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Department of Justice, and Gill v. Department of Justice, and acknowledged that at least one court had declined to dismiss those challenges as moot. The rescission reached only the May 18 funding order and left in place both the settlement agreement that purported to create the Fund and the separate May 19, 2026 order granting audit-related immunity to the Trump v. IRS plaintiffs, who did not sign the rescission. It followed a months-long standoff over Blanche's nomination to be confirmed as Attorney General, which two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had held up over the Fund and the immunity provision, and which the committee advanced on a 12-10 party-line vote on August 4, 2026.
On August 3, the defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing. As of early August, 2026, no substantive rulings have been issued and the case remains pending before Judge Leon, with the federal defendants' response due August 9, 2026.
Summary Authors
Trump2.0 Collection (6/7/2026)
Benjamin Glicksman (6/23/2026)
Simon Jillson (8/6/2026)
Related Cases
Dunn v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73424459/parties/gordon-v-blanche/
Bradley, Conor Michael (District of Columbia)
Cai, Angela (District of Columbia)
Eisen, Norman Larry (District of Columbia)
Haier, Aaron (District of Columbia)
Block, Andrew (District of Columbia)
Bradley, Conor Michael (District of Columbia)
Cai, Angela (District of Columbia)
Eisen, Norman Larry (District of Columbia)
Haier, Aaron (District of Columbia)
Heaphy, Timothy John (District of Columbia)
Hemminger, Lindsay (District of Columbia)
Kovacs-Goodman, Jacob (District of Columbia)
Platkin, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Ramanathan, Ravi (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73424459/gordon-v-blanche/
Last updated Sept. 16, 2026, 3:21 a.m.
Docket for: GORDON v. BLANCHE
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 1, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two former DOJ prosecutors who prosecuted individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Internal Revenue Service
United States Department of Justice
United States Department of Treasury
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01907
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Gordon v. Blanche, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48196/ (last updated 8/6/2026).