数十名前法官要求调查特朗普“反武器化基金”和解协议,称其“对法院存在欺诈”


2026年5月27日 / 美国东部时间晚7:57 / 哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)新闻

一个由35名前联邦法官组成的团体周三向法院提出请求,要求重启特朗普总统与联邦政府之间的一起法律纠纷。该纠纷此前通过设立备受争议的17.76亿美元“反武器化基金”达成和解,法官们称该协议可能存在欺诈行为。

此次法律 filing 进一步加剧了外界对该和解协议的批评浪潮。美国司法部上周宣布这项和解协议,以解决特朗普总统起诉国税局泄露其纳税申报单的诉讼。和解协议的核心是一项规模达数十亿美元的基金,用于赔偿那些声称自己遭受政府“武器化”迫害的人,同时承诺国税局不会基于此前的纳税申报单对特朗普总统提出索赔。

负责审理该诉讼的法官——美国地区法官凯瑟琳·威廉姆斯(Kathleen Williams)——上月曾暗示,她计划调查特朗普与本届政府之间的诉讼是否具有法律有效性。她表示,需要根据宪法要求,评估该案是否确实属于双方对立的“案件或争议”。

在全面调查该问题之前,威廉姆斯批准了特朗普律师和政府律师提出的驳回案件的请求。和解协议就在当天宣布。

如今,数十名退休法官主张威廉姆斯应当撤销此前的驳回裁定。该团体成员包括知名保守派法学家、曾批评特朗普的前上诉法官J·迈克尔·卢蒂格(J. Michael Luttig),以及前美国地区法官南希·格特纳(Nancy Gertner)和希拉·辛德林(Shira Scheindlin)。

法官们在文件中写道,重启此案将“允许法院展开调查,查明法院是否被误导,包括在潜在案件或争议的存在性,以及所谓为解决纠纷进行的公平谈判等方面”。

这些退休法官称,和解协议是“串通勾结的产物,本身就是对法院的欺诈”。他们还指出,威廉姆斯此前结案的命令中称“没有备案的和解协议”——前法官们认为这意味着威廉姆斯“被误导了”。

周三提交的文件中写道:“本案各方在法院完成对是否存在实际案件或争议的调查之前就驳回了此案,随后将他们所谓的此案‘和解’作为从联邦国库掠夺17.76亿美元的法律依据。”

这群退休法官辩称,威廉姆斯有权在存在“欺诈”的情况下撤销判决。

哥伦比亚广播公司新闻已联系美国司法部置评。

此次重启案件的尝试,正值该和解协议及“反武器化基金”引发逾一周争议之际。国会民主党人将其称为“政治分肥基金”,称其可能向特朗普的盟友输送资金;越来越多的共和党人也公开和私下表达了对该基金的疑虑,包括该基金是否可能用于支付特朗普去年赦免的1月6日暴动定罪参与者的赔偿。

美国司法部为该基金进行了辩护,称申请人无需满足党派要求,相关决定将由总检察长任命的五人委员会作出。

Dozens of ex-judges push to look into Trump’s “anti-weaponization fund” settlement, calling it a “fraud on the Court”

May 27, 2026 / 7:57 PM EDT / CBS News

A group of 35 former federal judges asked a court Wednesday to reopen a legal dispute between President Trump and the federal government that was settled by creating a controversial $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” calling the deal potentially fraudulent.

The legal filing adds to growing criticism of the settlement deal, which the Justice Department announced last week to resolve a lawsuit from the president accusing the Internal Revenue Service of allowing his tax returns to leak. At the center of the deal is a multibillion-dollar fund that would pay people who allege they were victimized by government “weaponization,” and a promise that the IRS will not pursue claims against the president based on prior tax returns.

The judge who oversaw the lawsuit — U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams — had signaled last month she planned to look into whether a lawsuit between Mr. Trump and his own administration would be legally valid. She said she needed to assess whether the issue was truly a “case or controversy” between two adversaries, as required by the Constitution.

Before fully looking into that issue, Williams granted a request from lawyers for the president and the government to dismiss the case. The settlement deal was announced on the same day.

Now, dozens of retired judges are arguing Williams should set aside her dismissal. The group includes former appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, a well-known conservative jurist who has been critical of Mr. Trump, and former U.S. District Judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin.

Reopening the case, the judges wrote, would “allow the court to commence an inquiry into whether the Court was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy and any purported arms-length negotiations undertaken to resolve.”

The retired judges wrote that the settlement deal is “a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court.” They also noted that Williams’ order closing the case said “there is no settlement of record” — which the former jurists argued means Williams was “deceived.”

“The parties here dismissed this case before the Court could complete its inquiry into whether there was an actual case or controversy, and then cited their ‘settlement’ of this case as the legal justification for looting the federal treasury of $1.776 billion,” Wednesday’s filing reads.

The group of retired judges argued that Williams has the power to set aside a judgment in instances of “fraud.”

CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

The attempt to reopen the case follows more than a week of controversy generated by the settlement deal and the “anti-weaponization fund.” Congressional Democrats have cast it as a “slush fund” that could funnel money to Mr. Trump’s allies, and a growing number of Republicans have expressed public and private qualms about the fund, including whether it could be used to pay out convicted Jan. 6 rioters who were pardoned by Mr. Trump last year.

The Justice Department has defended the fund, arguing there are no partisan requirements for people to apply and decisions will be made by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general.

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注