Filed Date: June 1, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is one of multiple challenges to the Trump Administration's creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion compensation program for individuals allegedly harmed by federal government "weaponization," including persons prosecuted in connection with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
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 who 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, as well as constitutional and ultra vires claims. Plaintiffs sued Defendants including the Acting Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Secretary of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Chief Executive Officer, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the IRS, and sought declaratory relief, vacatur, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
The case was assigned to Judge Richard J. Leon. As of June 2026, no substantive rulings had been issued.
Summary Authors
(6/7/2026)
Benjamin Glicksman (6/23/2026)
Dunn v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73424459/parties/gordon-v-blanche/
Leon, Richard J. (District of Columbia)
Eisen, Norman Larry (District of Columbia)
Heaphy, Timothy John (District of Columbia)
Hemminger, Lindsay (District of Columbia)
Kovacs-Goodman, Jacob (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73424459/gordon-v-blanche/
Last updated July 1, 2026, 3:19 a.m.
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 6/23/2026).