Case: Gill v. United States Department of Justice
3:26-cv-03283 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Filed Date: May 28, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is one of multiple challenges to the Department of Justice's creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion program intended to compensate individuals allegedly harmed by government "weaponization."
On May 28, 2026, the plaintiff, a former U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee and co-founder of a political podcast, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the United States of America. The plaintiff alleged that the VA investigated her in August 2019 and that she was later terminated after publicly criticizing President Trump through her podcast. She believed that she was subject to government "weaponization" during the first Trump term because of her political speech, and that she was eligible to file a claim with the newly established Anti-Weaponization Fund.
The Fund was created pursuant to a May 18, 2026 settlement agreement, resolving a federal lawsuit filed by President Trump and others on January 29, 2026, as well as two administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under that settlement, the Attorney General issued a Fund Establishment Order allocating $1,776,000,000 to the Fund, which was to be administered by a five-member commission appointed by the Attorney General, with members removable by the President, and was authorized to adjudicate claims, issue formal apologies, and award monetary relief to claimants alleging they were victims of government "Lawfare" or "Weaponization."
The plaintiff asserted a single claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that defendants established the Fund without publishing notice in the Federal Register or providing an opportunity for public comment as required by 5 U.S.C. § 553. She alleged that this deprived her of the opportunity to comment on the Fund's eligibility standards, definitions of "Lawfare" and "Weaponization," funding structure, and other rules affecting her asserted financial and due process interests. She sought declaratory relief, vacatur of the Fund Establishment Order and DOJ Notice, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. This case was assigned to District Judge Cathy A. Bencivengo and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner.
Unlike the parallel challenges in the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia, which raised constitutional and structural claims including separation of powers, the Appropriations Clause, and the First Amendment, this case rested solely on the procedural theory that the Fund was a legislative rule adopted without notice and comment.
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 Department of Justice 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 rescinding his May 18, 2026 order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund, stating that it would have no force or effect. An accompanying, unsigned Department of Justice statement asserted that no members had been appointed, no funds transferred, no claims process established, 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 Gordon v. Blanche, and acknowledged that at least one court had declined to dismiss those challenges as moot. Because the order rescinded the Fund Establishment Order that this suit sought to vacate, it bore directly on the relief the plaintiff requested. The rescission reached only the May 18 order, however, 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.
As of August 2026, the case remained in its early stages. The defendants had been served in June 2026 but had not appeared or responded to the complaint, and the court had not ruled on the merits or on any request for preliminary relief.
Summary Authors
Trump2.0 Collection (6/7/2026)
Simon Jillson (8/6/2026)
Benjamin Glicksman (7/10/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73408559/parties/gill-v-united-states-department-of-justice/
Bencivengo, Cathy Ann (California)
Hutchison, Kimberly Sue (California)
Joshi, Nandan M. (California)
Zieve, Allison Marcy (California)
CV, U S (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73408559/gill-v-united-states-department-of-justice/
Last updated Sept. 15, 2026, 3:22 a.m.
Docket for: Gill v. United States Department of Justice
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: May 28, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A former Department of Veterans Affairs employee and political podcaster
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Anti-Weaponization Fund
United States Department of Justice
United States of America
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Other Dockets:
Southern District of California 3:26-cv-03283
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Content/viewpoint discrimination
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Gill v. United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48202/ (last updated 7/10/2026).