Eleventh Circuit Denies Stay in Trump v. IRS Sanctions Appeal: What It Means for the Anti-Weaponization Fund Litigation
By Biazzo Law, PLLC
Updated September 30, 2026
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has denied a motion to stay portions of the Southern District of Florida’s post-judgment sanctions order in President Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., No. 26-12692.
The order does not end the appeal. It does not decide every issue on the merits. But it is an important appellate development in the continuing litigation over the disputed Trump v. IRS settlement, the alleged Anti-Weaponization Fund, the use of the Judgment Fund, and whether the underlying lawsuit was a genuine Article III case or a vehicle for a government-funded settlement structure.
This update follows Biazzo Law’s prior coverage:
This case also fits directly within the mission of the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, which focuses on nonpartisan constitutional accountability, judicial review, separation of powers, lawful use of public funds, government transparency, and limits on public authority:
Quick Answer: What Happened in the Eleventh Circuit?
The Eleventh Circuit denied the appellants’ motion to stay the district court’s sanctions order while the appeal proceeds.
That means the challenged sanctions remain in effect for now, subject to further appellate proceedings.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that a stay pending appeal is not automatic. The party seeking a stay must show, among other things, a strong likelihood of success on appeal and irreparable harm without a stay.
The stay panel concluded that the appellants had not made the required showing.
What Is the Case About?
The underlying case began when President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization sued the IRS and Treasury Department over alleged unauthorized access to and disclosure of confidential tax-return information.
The plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
After that dismissal, the Department of Justice publicly announced a settlement that reportedly included a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and broad releases. Thirty-five former federal judges then asked the district court to reopen or review the case, arguing that the settlement and dismissal raised serious questions about collusion, Article III jurisdiction, judicial process, and use of public funds.
The district court entered a July 13, 2026 sanctions order. The plaintiffs and two of their attorneys appealed and asked the Eleventh Circuit to stay the sanctions while the appeal proceeds.
What Did the District Court’s Sanctions Order Do?
The district court imposed non-monetary sanctions.
In general terms, the order:
referred attorney Alejandro Brito to The Florida Bar for consideration of whether disciplinary action is appropriate;
barred future pro hac vice applications by attorney Daniel Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for one year or until further court order;
and prohibited the parties from referring to the purported “settlement agreement,” or using, offering, admitting, or citing its provisions in official proceedings as evidence of a settlement reached in that case.
The district court also found that the parties were not genuinely adverse, that the litigation was collusive, and that the case had been filed for an improper purpose. Those findings are now part of the appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit’s stay order did not finally decide whether those findings were correct. It decided only whether the sanctions should be stayed while the appeal continues.
What Did the Appellants Argue?
The appellants argued that the district court abused its sanctions power.
Their stay motion asserted that President Trump sued in his personal capacity, alongside his sons and The Trump Organization, to vindicate statutory rights arising from alleged unlawful tax-return disclosures. They argued that the IRS and Treasury represented separate federal interests and that the district court erred by treating presidential supervision of the Executive Branch as eliminating Article III adversity.
They also argued that the sanctions were imposed without adequate notice, evidence, or individualized findings.
And they argued that the speech-related sanction was an unconstitutional prior restraint because it limited how the parties could reference the disputed settlement agreement in official proceedings.
In short, the appellants framed the district court order as a serious judicial overreach.
What Did the Former Federal Judges Argue?
The thirty-five former federal judges argued that the case and settlement raised extraordinary concerns.
They asserted that the voluntary dismissal did not mention a settlement even though DOJ soon announced one. They argued that the announced settlement purported to create a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and broad releases, while no settlement documents had been placed before the district court before dismissal.
They asked the district court to use Rule 60 and its inherent authority to examine whether the case and settlement involved fraud on the court, lack of adversity, manipulation of judicial process, and improper use of the Judgment Fund.
Their filing helped trigger the district court’s post-judgment review.
What Did Biazzo Law’s Amicus Filings Raise?
Biazzo Law’s amicus filings focused on a distinct appropriations-law and Judgment Fund issue.
The central point was narrow:
Settlement authority and payment authority are not the same thing.
Even if the Executive Branch has authority to settle litigation, that does not automatically mean the Judgment Fund may be used to capitalize a future-claimant compensation program for people who were not parties, whose claims were not adjudicated, and whose future claims had not yet matured.
Biazzo Law argued that the Judgment Fund is designed to pay qualifying judgments, awards, and compromise settlements—not to create a discretionary compensation program untethered to resolved claims.
The filings also emphasized that public money must be spent only as Congress appropriates it. That is the core constitutional issue: the Appropriations Clause gives Congress—not the Executive Branch—the power of the purse.
The Eleventh Circuit’s stay order did not decide the ultimate Judgment Fund issue. But that issue remains important to understanding why this case has drawn Government Oversight attention.
What Did the Eleventh Circuit Decide?
The Eleventh Circuit denied the stay.
The court first explained that appellate jurisdiction was a threshold issue. If the court lacked jurisdiction to review a particular part of the sanctions order immediately, then the appellants could not show likely success on appeal as to that part.
The court identified three possible routes to appellate jurisdiction:
final-order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
the collateral-order doctrine;
and interlocutory appellate jurisdiction for injunctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The court concluded that the appellants had not made a strong showing that the sanctions order was final under § 1291 because the district court still had more work to do. The former judges’ request to reopen the case had not been resolved, and attorneys’ fee proceedings remained pending.
The Individual Sanctions: Brito and Epstein
The Eleventh Circuit denied a stay of the individual sanctions against attorneys Alejandro Brito and Daniel Epstein based on significant doubts about immediate appellate jurisdiction.
For Mr. Brito’s Florida Bar referral, the court cited Eleventh Circuit authority suggesting that a mere reprimand and referral to a state disciplinary committee is not immediately appealable.
For Mr. Epstein’s pro hac vice suspension, the court relied on Supreme Court authority holding that Rule-based sanctions against counsel generally are not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
The court emphasized that attorneys generally may appeal sanctions at the appropriate time. But for purposes of emergency relief now, the panel concluded that appellants had not made the necessary showing of immediate appellate jurisdiction.
The Speech-Related Sanction
The Eleventh Circuit treated the speech-related sanction differently.
The court concluded that the appellants made a strong showing that the speech-related sanction was likely immediately appealable because it had the practical effect of an injunction.
The sanction prevents the parties from referring to or using the disputed “settlement agreement” in official proceedings as evidence of a settlement reached in the case.
Because that restriction operates now and could affect official proceedings before final judgment, the court addressed whether the appellants had shown a strong likelihood of success on their First Amendment challenge.
The panel concluded that they had not.
Why the Eleventh Circuit Rejected the First Amendment Stay Argument
The appellants argued that the speech-related sanction was an unconstitutional gag order and prior restraint.
The Eleventh Circuit disagreed at the stay stage.
The court reasoned that the sanction was entered after the parties had an opportunity to respond and after the district court made findings of collusion and bad faith. The panel also relied on the district court’s later clarification that the restriction was narrower than appellants described.
According to that clarification, the order does not bar every reference to every agreement under every circumstance. Instead, it limits the parties from using the disputed agreement in official proceedings as evidence of a settlement reached in the case.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that speech by parties and attorneys in judicial proceedings may be subject to limits that would not necessarily apply in ordinary public debate.
Because of that narrower construction, the court held that appellants had not made a strong showing that they would prevail on their First Amendment challenge.
What Did the Eleventh Circuit Say About Collusion and Bad Faith?
The Eleventh Circuit did not finally decide whether the district court’s collusion and bad-faith findings were correct.
But it did conclude that appellants had not made a strong showing that those findings were clearly erroneous.
The court stressed that findings of collusion and bad faith are factual findings reviewed for clear error. It also noted that appellants had not submitted or offered evidence to explain their litigation conduct or to demonstrate that the lawsuit and settlement were not collusive.
That point was important to the stay ruling.
At this stage, the appellate panel did not need to decide whether another view of the record was possible. It asked whether appellants had shown that the district court’s factual findings were likely clearly erroneous. The court held that they had not.
What Does the Stay Denial Mean?
The stay denial means the sanctions remain in effect for now.
It does not mean the appeal is over.
It does not mean the merits panel is bound by the stay panel.
It does not mean the Eleventh Circuit has finally decided every question about Article III adversity, Rule 11 sanctions, inherent authority, fraud on the court, the First Amendment, the Judgment Fund, or the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
It means the appellants did not meet the demanding standard for emergency appellate relief.
That is a meaningful development, but it is not the final chapter.
What Happens Next?
Several issues remain open.
The Eleventh Circuit appeal will continue.
The merits panel may later address jurisdiction, the sanctions order, the First Amendment arguments, and any other properly preserved appellate issues.
In the district court, fee-related proceedings remain ongoing, and the former judges’ request to reopen the case had not been resolved as of the Eleventh Circuit’s stay order.
The core Government Oversight questions also remain important:
Was there a genuine Article III case or controversy?
Could the lawsuit be used to support the disputed settlement?
Could the Judgment Fund be used for the Anti-Weaponization Fund structure?
What limits apply when the Executive Branch settles claims involving a sitting President in his personal capacity?
What role do courts have when a voluntary dismissal is followed by an announced settlement that raises public-funds and judicial-process concerns?
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
This case is about more than one lawsuit.
It involves the relationship between private litigation, executive power, judicial legitimacy, public money, and post-judgment court oversight.
The issue is not whether anyone should approve or disapprove of President Trump, the IRS, the Department of Justice, or any political party.
The issue is institutional:
Can federal litigation be used to create legal cover for a public-money settlement when the court has unresolved concerns about adversity, jurisdiction, and the legitimacy of the settlement predicate?
That is a rule-of-law question.
It matters regardless of who is President.
Why This Is a Government Oversight Issue
The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program focuses on nonpartisan legal analysis of government power.
This case implicates several Government Oversight themes:
Article III case-or-controversy limits;
separation of powers;
public spending and the Appropriations Clause;
Rule 11 and court authority to protect judicial process;
the Judgment Fund;
DOJ settlement authority;
potential misuse of official proceedings;
the boundary between private settlement authority and public payment authority;
and appellate review of sanctions.
Those issues are legal, not partisan.
Government accountability should apply to every administration, every agency, every party, and every public official.
Why the Judgment Fund Issue Still Matters
The Eleventh Circuit stay order did not decide whether the Judgment Fund could lawfully support the disputed Anti-Weaponization Fund.
But that issue remains central to the public importance of the case.
The Judgment Fund is not a blank check. It is a permanent appropriation used for qualifying judgments, awards, and compromise settlements. Biazzo Law’s public-record filings argued that the Fund cannot be transformed into a future-claimant compensation mechanism simply by labeling something a settlement.
That distinction matters.
The Executive Branch may have settlement authority in many circumstances. But public payment authority must come from Congress.
That is why this case belongs in a Government Oversight discussion.
What the Public Should Take Away
The Eleventh Circuit’s order is a procedural appellate ruling, but it carries practical significance.
For now:
the district court’s sanctions remain in place;
the speech-related restriction remains in effect as narrowed by the district court’s clarification;
the individual attorney sanctions are not stayed;
the merits appeal continues;
and unresolved district-court proceedings remain pending.
The most important takeaway is that courts retain authority to police their own proceedings, even after voluntary dismissal, when collateral issues such as Rule 11 sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and judicial-process integrity remain.
At the same time, the appeal will test the limits of that authority.
This Blog Does Not Decide the Merits
This article does not decide whether the district court was right or wrong.
It does not decide whether anyone committed fraud on the court.
It does not decide whether the settlement agreement is valid or invalid.
It does not decide whether any criminal exposure exists.
It does not endorse or oppose any political figure, party, administration, or public official.
It summarizes an appellate stay ruling and explains the legal issues at stake.
Key Takeaway
The Eleventh Circuit denied a stay in the Trump v. IRS sanctions appeal.
The panel found serious doubts about immediate appellate jurisdiction over the individual attorney sanctions and concluded that appellants had not shown a strong likelihood of success on their First Amendment challenge to the speech-related sanction.
The appeal continues. The district court proceedings continue. And the broader Government Oversight questions remain highly significant.
The rule-of-law principle is straightforward:
Public money, court proceedings, and executive settlement authority must operate within constitutional and statutory limits.
That principle is nonpartisan.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Eleventh Circuit do?
The Eleventh Circuit denied the appellants’ motion to stay aspects of the district court’s sanctions order while the appeal proceeds.
Does the stay denial end the appeal?
No. The appeal continues. The stay order is not a final merits decision.
What sanctions remain in effect?
For now, the district court’s non-monetary sanctions remain in effect, including the Florida Bar referral, the pro hac vice restriction, and the speech-related restriction concerning use of the disputed settlement agreement in official proceedings.
Did the Eleventh Circuit decide the Judgment Fund issue?
No. The stay order did not decide whether the Judgment Fund could lawfully support the disputed Anti-Weaponization Fund structure.
What did Biazzo Law’s amicus filings argue?
Biazzo Law argued that settlement authority and payment authority are distinct, and that the Judgment Fund does not authorize creation of a future-claimant compensation program untethered to resolved claims.
What did the appellants argue?
They argued that the district court abused its sanctions power, misapplied Article III adversity principles, imposed sanctions without adequate notice or evidence, and entered an unconstitutional prior restraint.
What did the Eleventh Circuit say about the speech restriction?
The court treated the speech-related sanction as likely appealable because it had the practical effect of an injunction, but it concluded that appellants had not made a strong showing that they would prevail on their First Amendment challenge.
What did the court say about the individual attorney sanctions?
The court expressed significant doubts about immediate appellate jurisdiction over the Florida Bar referral and pro hac vice restriction, so it denied a stay as to those sanctions.
Why is this a Government Oversight case?
The case involves Article III jurisdiction, court integrity, Rule 11, separation of powers, public spending, the Judgment Fund, DOJ settlement authority, and the use of litigation to support public-funds decisions.
Is this blog political?
No. This is legal analysis of court filings and appellate action. The same Government Oversight principles apply regardless of which person or party controls the Executive Branch.
Comments