Case: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice
1:26-cv-01789 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: May 22, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is one of multiple challenges to the Trump Administration's allegedly unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which compensates purported victims of governmental "lawfare," including January 6 defendants.
On May 22, 2026, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-profit government watchdog organization, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and various department heads and Fund administrators. The complaint alleged that on May 18, 2026, President Trump engineered a "collusive" settlement of Trump v. IRS, a lawsuit he had filed against two federal agencies under his own control, purportedly creating a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" drawn from the Treasury's Judgment Fund without congressional authorization. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal criminal defense attorney, signed the order directing the transfer. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the Fund's charter documents purported to exempt it from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Federal Records Act (FRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Moreover, its five Members, who were appointed by the Attorney General and removable solely by the President without cause, were allegedly granted final, unreviewable authority to issue monetary relief to claimants, including expected beneficiaries such as pardoned January 6 insurrectionists. CREW asserted eight counts including separation of powers violations, multiple APA violations, ultra vires action, FOIA non-compliance, and mandamus. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, vacatur of the May 18 settlement and order, injunctive relief halting Treasury transfers and Fund disbursements, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Richard J. Leon.
On May 28, 2026, CREW moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or, alternatively, a stay and a preliminary injunction, seeking to halt implementation of the Fund and preserve records related to its operations. After Acting Attorney General Blanche testified before Congress on June 2, 2026 that the DOJ was "not moving forward with the Fund," the government argued that the case was no longer justiciable. On June 10, 2026, District Judge Leon denied CREW's request for a TRO, relying on those representations. On June 23, 2026, the court denied CREW's motion for a stay and preliminary injunction, concluding that the case was likely moot because the DOJ had repeatedly represented that it would not proceed with the Fund and, alternatively, that the dispute was not ripe for judicial review. 2026 WL 1802997.
In denying relief, Judge Leon took a different view of the government's assurances than the court in the parallel Eastern District of Virginia case, Floyd v. Department of Justice, where Judge Leonie M. Brinkema had enjoined the Fund from operating and had asked the government for sworn declarations that it would not be created. CREW had filed a notice of supplemental authority calling the court's attention to the June 12 order in Floyd before Judge Leon ruled.
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.
On August 2, 2026, Acting Attorney General 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, and an accompanying, unsigned DOJ statement asserted 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, Gordon v. Blanche, and Gill v. Department of Justice, and acknowledged that at least one court had declined to dismiss those challenges as moot. Because the order reached only the May 18 funding order, and neither amended the settlement agreement that purported to create the Fund nor disturbed the separate May 19, 2026 order granting audit-related immunity to the Trump v. IRS plaintiffs, who did not sign the rescission, commentators noted that it did not foreclose the Fund's revival or an action to enforce the settlement. The rescission 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 court had denied CREW preliminary relief on mootness and ripeness grounds and no further substantive rulings have been issued.
Summary Authors
(6/7/2026)
Benjamin Glicksman (7/2/2026)
Simon Jillson (8/6/2026)
Related Cases
Dunn v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2026)
Floyd v. Department of Justice, Eastern District of Virginia (2026)
Gordon v. Blanche, District of District of Columbia (2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73384679/parties/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-v-us-department-of/
Leon, Richard J. (District of Columbia)
Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)
Farchadi, Kayvan (District of Columbia)
McPhail, Stuart C. (District of Columbia)
Block, Andrew (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73384679/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-v-us-department-of/
Last updated Aug. 6, 2026, 10:26 a.m.
Docket for: CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Accommodations/ Contracting/ Organizational Discrimination
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 22, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Nonprofit government watchdog organization
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Internal Revenue Service
The Anti-Weaponization Fund
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.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01789
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48204/ (last updated 8/6/2026).