Trump v. IRS Anti-Weaponization Fund Update: Biazzo Law Places Judgment Fund and Appropriations Issues on the Public Record

By Biazzo Law, PLLC

June 28, 2026

The federal court dispute over Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the use of the federal Judgment Fund has entered a new procedural phase.

Biazzo Law previously analyzed the controversy in two articles:

Trump v. IRS, the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the Constitutional Fight Over Government Powerhttps://www.biazzolaw.com/post/trump-v-irs-the-anti-weaponization-fund-and-the-constitutional-fight-over-government-power

Could Trump Face Criminal Exposure Over the Anti-Weaponization Fund Settlement? Fraud on the Court, Presidential Immunity, Self-Pardons, and Potential Federal Chargeshttps://www.biazzolaw.com/post/could-trump-face-criminal-exposure-over-the-anti-weaponization-fund-settlement-fraud-on-the-court

This update explains what happened next, why Biazzo Law filed proposed amicus submissions, how the Court ruled on those filings, and why the public record now includes a narrow but important fiscal-law question:

Does federal settlement authority permit the Executive Branch to use the Judgment Fund to create and capitalize a future-claimant compensation program for nonparties whose claims have not yet been adjudicated, compromised, or settled?

That question matters regardless of political party.

It is a constitutional government oversight issue. Public money may be spent only as Congress authorizes. Settlement authority is important, but it is not a blank check to create new compensation programs outside Congress.

Quick Answer: What Is the Latest Update in Trump v. IRS?

Biazzo Law filed two proposed amicus submissions in the Southern District of Florida.

The first was filed as DE 66, titled Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of Corey J. Biazzo, Esq. in Support of Reopening and Limited Review of Settlement Authority.

That filing asked the Court for permission to submit a proposed amicus brief addressing a distinct statutory and appropriations-law issue: whether the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304, 28 U.S.C. § 2414, the Purpose Statute, the advance-payment statute, public-money custody rules, and related fiscal statutes permit the Executive Branch to use the Trump v. IRS settlement to capitalize a future-claimant compensation program.

The Court denied that first motion on June 2, 2026. Importantly, the denial was procedural. The Court explained that it was awaiting Plaintiffs’ briefing and believed that, “at this juncture,” there was no need for additional amicus participation.

After Plaintiffs filed their June 12 response at DE 89, Biazzo Law filed a renewed and narrower request at DE 91, titled Renewed Motion for Leave to File Short Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief of Corey J. Biazzo, Esq. Addressing Plaintiffs’ June 12, 2026 Settlement-Authority Argument.

That renewed filing focused on one issue: Plaintiffs’ argument that the United States possessed independent authority to compromise and settle the relevant claims “with or without a pending lawsuit,” citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2414, 2672, 2677 and 31 U.S.C. § 1304.

Biazzo Law’s response was narrow: settlement authority and payment authority are distinct. Even if DOJ may compromise claims, that does not automatically mean Treasury may use the Judgment Fund to capitalize an open-ended future-claimant administrative fund for persons who are not parties to the settlement and whose claims have not yet been resolved.

On June 25, 2026, the Court entered a paperless order at DE 103 denying several motions for leave to file additional amici briefing, including Biazzo Law’s renewed motion at DE 91. Again, the Court did not reject Biazzo Law’s substantive fiscal-law argument on the merits. Instead, the Court stated that it appreciated the assistance offered through the proposed filings, but determined that the case was sufficiently briefed and that no additional amici briefing was needed.

That is an important distinction.

The Court denied leave to file. But Biazzo Law’s filings still placed the Judgment Fund and appropriations issue on the public docket.

The Case in Context: Why Trump v. IRS Raised Government Oversight Concerns

The underlying case was filed by President Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization against the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The lawsuit alleged unlawful access and disclosure of tax-return information connected to former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. The case was later voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

The public controversy arose because the dismissal was linked to a reported settlement structure involving a proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.

According to public filings and challenges to the settlement, the Fund was not structured simply as a direct damages payment to the Trump plaintiffs. Instead, it was described as a future-claimant compensation mechanism for people or entities who claimed harm from “Lawfare” or “Weaponization.”

That structure created a major public-money question.

Settlements usually resolve claims between the parties. The Anti-Weaponization Fund raised a different issue: whether a settlement can be used as a legal vehicle to create a new compensation program for future claimants.

That is where Biazzo Law’s proposed amicus filings came in.

What the Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges Argued

Before Biazzo Law filed its proposed amicus submissions, thirty-five former federal judges filed a motion for relief from judgment or order, or in the alternative for leave to appear as amici curiae.

Their motion, docketed as DE 63, argued that the settlement raised serious concerns about collusion, fraud on the court, and manipulation of the judicial process.

They argued that the parties did not place the settlement before the Court, that the settlement allegedly invoked the lawsuit as a legal justification for the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and that the Court should reopen the case or otherwise examine whether there had been a genuine case or controversy.

Their motion focused on Rule 60, fraud on the court, adversity, Article III concerns, and judicial integrity.

Biazzo Law did not seek to duplicate those arguments.

Instead, Biazzo Law focused on a separate statutory and appropriations-law question: even if one assumes settlement authority exists, does that authority authorize the federal government to use the Judgment Fund to create a future-claimant compensation program?

Biazzo Law’s DE 66 Filing: The First Proposed Amicus Submission

Biazzo Law’s first filing, DE 66, identified a specific public fiscal accountability issue.

The filing explained that existing amici and movants had addressed many important issues, including Article III adversity, separation of powers, professional conflicts, the Domestic Emoluments Clause, alleged defects in Plaintiffs’ claims, and Rule 60 relief.

Biazzo Law did not seek to repeat those arguments.

Instead, the proposed amicus brief addressed whether the Judgment Fund and related fiscal statutes permit the Executive Branch to use a settlement to capitalize a future-claimant compensation program whose corpus does not represent the value of the plaintiffs’ current claims.

That was a different issue.

It went to Congress’s power of the purse, the limits of executive settlement authority, and whether a case dismissal and settlement can be used as a legal predicate for federal spending that Congress did not specifically authorize.

The Court’s June 2 Order Denying DE 66

On June 2, 2026, the Court denied Biazzo Law’s first motion for leave to file an amicus brief at DE 66.

That order is important for what it did — and did not — decide.

The Court did not reject Biazzo Law’s Judgment Fund, appropriations-law, or fiscal-authority argument on the merits. Instead, the Court explained that it was awaiting Plaintiffs’ briefing and believed that, “at this juncture,” there was no need for additional amicus participation.

That language matters.

Biazzo Law’s first filing was made before Plaintiffs filed their June 12 response. The Court chose to wait for Plaintiffs’ briefing rather than accept additional amicus participation at that stage.

After Plaintiffs later relied on settlement-authority statutes and the Judgment Fund in DE 89, Biazzo Law filed a renewed and narrower motion at DE 91 directed specifically to Plaintiffs’ new settlement-authority argument.

The procedural sequence is important:

DE 66 placed the initial Judgment Fund and appropriations issue on the public docket.

The Court denied DE 66 because it was awaiting Plaintiffs’ briefing and saw no need for additional amici at that juncture.

Plaintiffs then filed DE 89 and argued that federal settlement statutes and the Judgment Fund supported the settlement.

Biazzo Law then filed DE 91, a renewed and narrower proposed supplemental amicus submission addressing that exact statutory argument.

The Court later denied DE 91 and other amici motions at DE 103 because it determined the case was sufficiently briefed and no additional amici briefing was needed.

In both orders, the key point is procedural: the Court declined additional amicus participation. It did not adjudicate or reject Biazzo Law’s substantive public-money argument.

Plaintiffs’ Response and the Settlement-Authority Argument

Plaintiffs responded at DE 89.

Their position was that the case was lawfully dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), that the dismissal was self-executing, that nonparty movants lacked standing, that the Court lacked authority to review the settlement, and that the United States had independent settlement authority outside litigation.

Plaintiffs cited several statutes, including:

28 U.S.C. § 2414;

28 U.S.C. § 2672;

28 U.S.C. § 2677;

31 U.S.C. § 1304;

26 U.S.C. § 7122; and

31 U.S.C. § 3711.

Plaintiffs argued that these authorities supported the government’s ability to compromise and settle claims.

Biazzo Law’s renewed motion did not argue that DOJ can never settle claims outside litigation. That would be wrong.

The narrower point was that settlement authority and payment authority are different.

The Department of Justice may have authority to compromise certain claims. But that does not automatically authorize Treasury to use the Judgment Fund to capitalize a discretionary future-claimant fund for nonparties.

Biazzo Law’s DE 91 Filing: The Renewed Narrow Submission

After Plaintiffs filed DE 89, Biazzo Law filed DE 91.

The renewed motion was even narrower than the first.

Biazzo Law asked only to submit a short supplemental amicus brief addressing Plaintiffs’ June 12 settlement-authority argument.

The renewed filing expressly stated that Biazzo Law was not seeking intervention, discovery, oral argument, reconsideration, party status, or duplicative briefing on Rule 60 standing, Rule 41, fraud on the court, Rule 11, Article III adversity, separation of powers, or the merits of Plaintiffs’ tax claims.

That restraint matters.

The proposed submission was designed to assist the Court with one question:

If Plaintiffs rely on settlement statutes and the Judgment Fund statutes to justify the Anti-Weaponization

Fund, do those statutes actually answer the appropriations question?

Biazzo Law’s position was that they do not appear to do so.

The Court’s June 25 Order Denying Additional Amici Briefing

On June 25, 2026, the Court entered a paperless order at DE 103 denying several motions for leave to file additional amici briefing, including Biazzo Law’s renewed motion at DE 91.

The Court stated that it “greatly appreciates” the assistance offered through the proposed filings, but determined that the case was sufficiently briefed and that there was no need for additional amici briefing.

That ruling should be understood accurately.

The Court did not decide that Biazzo Law’s Judgment Fund argument was wrong.

The Court did not hold that the Executive Branch had statutory authority to use the Judgment Fund to capitalize the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

The Court did not reject the broader appropriations concern on the merits.

The Court simply declined to accept additional amicus briefing at that stage.

That distinction matters.

Why This Was a Public Record Contribution Even Though Leave Was Denied

The Court denied both Biazzo Law’s first and renewed requests for amicus participation.

The first denial, entered on June 2, 2026, denied DE 66 because the Court was awaiting Plaintiffs’ briefing and believed that, “at this juncture,” there was no need for additional amicus participation.

The second denial, entered on June 25, 2026, denied DE 91 and other amici motions because the Court determined the case had been sufficiently briefed and that no additional amici briefing was needed. In that later order, the Court also stated that it “greatly appreciates” the assistance offered through the proposed filings.

Those rulings should be understood accurately.

The Court did not decide that Biazzo Law’s Judgment Fund argument was wrong.

The Court did not hold that the Executive Branch had statutory authority to use the Judgment Fund to capitalize the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

The Court did not reject the broader appropriations concern on the merits.

The Court simply declined to accept additional amicus briefing at the procedural stages when the motions were presented.

That distinction matters.

Biazzo Law accomplished an important public-interest objective: placing the narrow appropriations-law issue on the public docket in a high-profile constitutional controversy.

For government oversight, that matters.

Public accountability often begins by identifying the precise legal question that powerful actors would prefer to avoid.

The Core Legal Issue: Settlement Authority Is Not the Same as Appropriations Authority

This is the most important legal point in Biazzo Law’s proposed filings.

The Executive Branch often has authority to settle claims. The Department of Justice routinely settles civil cases. Agencies also have statutory settlement authority in specific contexts.

But a settlement agreement is not itself an appropriation.

The Constitution gives Congress control over federal spending. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 provides that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except in consequence of appropriations made by law.

The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation. It pays certain judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and costs when statutory conditions are met.

But the Judgment Fund is not a general public-policy fund.

It does not allow the Executive Branch to create any compensation program it wants merely by attaching the word “settlement” to it.

Biazzo Law’s proposed amicus brief framed the issue this way: the Judgment Fund may pay eligible judgments and settlements, but that does not necessarily mean it can be used to capitalize a new open-ended future-claimant program for nonparties whose claims have not been adjudicated, compromised, or settled.

Why the Anti-Weaponization Fund Was Different

The Anti-Weaponization Fund raised a distinct appropriations problem because it reportedly was not simply a payment to the plaintiffs for their own adjudicated or settled claims.

Instead, according to settlement materials and public filings, the Fund was designed to compensate future claimants who asserted harm from “Lawfare” or “Weaponization.”

That distinction matters.

Congress can create compensation schemes for broad classes of claimants. It has done so before.

But the Executive Branch cannot normally create a new class-wide compensation program simply by settling one civil case, especially where the settlement corpus is not tied to the value of the named plaintiffs’ claims.

That was the central issue Biazzo Law sought to brief.

The Judgment Fund Question

The Judgment Fund is governed principally by 31 U.S.C. § 1304.

It is designed to pay certain final judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and costs against the United States when the relevant conditions are satisfied.

But the statutory text does not create a roving executive authority to invent new claims, new commissions, new eligibility standards, or new compensation programs.

Biazzo Law’s proposed filing argued that the Anti-Weaponization Fund presents a problem separate from whether the government may settle the Trump plaintiffs’ claims.

The key question is whether the Judgment Fund can lawfully supply money for a future-claimant compensation program where the fund’s corpus does not represent the current plaintiffs’ claims.

In ordinary language:

The government may be able to settle a case. But that does not mean it can use that settlement to create a new federal benefits program.

The Purpose Statute and Public-Money Limits

Biazzo Law’s proposed filings also identified several related fiscal statutes.

The Purpose Statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), requires appropriations to be applied only to the objects for which they were made.

The advance-payment statute and public-money custody rules limit how federal money may be drawn, deposited, held, and spent.

The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal officers from authorizing expenditures or obligations exceeding available appropriations or before appropriations are made unless authorized by law.

Together, these statutes reflect a single principle: public money remains under congressional control.

That principle is foundational.

Without it, the Executive Branch could use creative settlement structures to build programs Congress never enacted.

The Thirty-Five Former Judges’ Reply

The thirty-five former federal judges later filed a reply at DE 94.

Their reply argued that Plaintiffs’ response reinforced the need for investigation. They maintained that the case involved an allegedly collusive suit, an unprecedented settlement, steps to avoid judicial scrutiny, and the government’s reported decision to walk away from the large settlement fund while allegedly retaining broad releases.

Their reply also argued that the Court has broad authority to investigate fraud on the court and that Rule 11, Rule 60, and inherent authority may provide avenues for appropriate relief if the Court finds misconduct.

Biazzo Law’s filings complemented that broader argument by focusing on the appropriations side of the dispute.

The former judges asked whether the Court’s processes had been misused.

Biazzo Law asked whether the Treasury payment mechanism itself had statutory authority.

Both questions are important. They are also distinct.

What the Court Did and Did Not Decide

It is important to be precise.

The Court denied Biazzo Law’s requests for additional amicus participation.

The Court did not decide that the Anti-Weaponization Fund was lawful.

The Court did not decide that the Judgment Fund could properly be used to capitalize the Fund.

The Court did not decide that the fiscal-law concerns raised by Biazzo Law lacked merit.

The Court did not make a merits ruling rejecting Biazzo Law’s statutory and appropriations-law position.

Based on the materials reviewed for this update, the Court also had not made a final finding that fraud on the court occurred.

The filings raised serious allegations and legal questions. But allegations are not findings.

That precision matters.

Government oversight should be forceful, but it should also be accurate.

Why This Matters for Government Oversight

This update is not about partisan politics.

It is about public money, constitutional structure, and whether federal officials remain bound by law when resolving high-stakes disputes involving powerful people.

Several principles are at stake:

Federal courts may decide only real cases and controversies.

The Executive Branch may settle claims only within lawful authority.

The Judgment Fund may be used only when statutory conditions are satisfied.

Congress controls the power of the purse.

Settlement labels cannot substitute for statutory authorization.

Courts must be able to protect the integrity of their own proceedings.

The public has a right to know when federal money may be spent through unusual legal structures.

That is why Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program continues to monitor these issues.

Learn more about the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawgovernmentoversight

How This Builds on Biazzo Law’s Prior Coverage

Biazzo Law’s prior article, Trump v. IRS, the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the Constitutional Fight Over Government Power, explained why the Fund raised major constitutional questions involving the Judgment Fund, separation of powers, Article III, the Administrative Procedure Act, and executive-branch spending authority.

Read that article here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/trump-v-irs-the-anti-weaponization-fund-and-the-constitutional-fight-over-government-power

Biazzo Law’s later article, Could Trump Face Criminal Exposure Over the Anti-Weaponization Fund Settlement? Fraud on the Court, Presidential Immunity, Self-Pardons, and Potential Federal Charges, explained that no court had found a crime, but that certain factual scenarios could theoretically implicate criminal statutes if prosecutors could prove criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read that article here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/could-trump-face-criminal-exposure-over-the-anti-weaponization-fund-settlement-fraud-on-the-court

This new update is narrower.

It focuses on the docket developments after those articles: Biazzo Law’s proposed amicus filings, the Court’s June 2 order denying DE 66, Plaintiffs’ June 12 response, Biazzo Law’s renewed motion at DE 91, the Court’s June 25 order denying additional amici briefing, and the significance of placing the appropriations issue on the public record.

Biazzo Law’s Role in the Public Record

Biazzo Law’s filings were limited, non-duplicative, and focused.

The firm did not seek party status.

It did not seek discovery.

It did not seek oral argument.

It did not ask the Court to decide every downstream challenge to the Fund.

It did not attempt to duplicate the work of the thirty-five former federal judges, former government officials, CREW, Public Citizen, or other amici.

Instead, Biazzo Law identified a narrow legal question that may matter in future litigation and public oversight:

Can the Executive Branch use settlement statutes and the Judgment Fund to create and capitalize a discretionary future-claimant compensation program that Congress did not enact?

That issue is now on the public docket.

For a constitutional and appellate law firm focused on government oversight, that is meaningful.

It shows how targeted amicus work can contribute to public legal accountability even when the Court ultimately decides that no further briefing is needed.

Why Amicus Filings Matter Even When Leave Is Denied

Not every amicus motion is granted.

But proposed amicus filings can still matter.

They can sharpen legal issues.

They can identify statutory gaps.

They can preserve public arguments.

They can inform other litigants, journalists, oversight organizations, and courts.

They can place a legal theory in the public record for future cases.

They can show that the issue is being monitored by lawyers outside the immediate parties.

That is especially important in cases involving government power, public money, executive discretion, and constitutional structure.

Biazzo Law’s Constitutional Law and U.S. Supreme Court Practice

Biazzo Law handles constitutional litigation, federal appellate strategy, U.S. Supreme Court practice, amicus curiae briefs, emergency applications, government oversight matters, and appellate-sensitive civil litigation.

Cases like Trump v. IRS show why constitutional litigation often requires more than ordinary motion practice. The issues can involve standing, jurisdiction, Rule 60, Rule 11, fraud on the court, separation of powers, the Judgment Fund, administrative law, fiscal statutes, and preservation for future appellate review.

Learn more about Biazzo Law’s U.S. Supreme Court practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawscotuspractice

Learn more about Biazzo Law’s Constitutional Law practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/constitutional-law-attorney

Learn more about Biazzo Law’s Amicus Curiae practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/amicus-curiae-briefs

Learn more about Biazzo Law’s Federal Appellate Litigation practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/federal-appellate-litigation

Why This Matters in Florida, North Carolina, and Federal Courts Nationwide

Although Trump v. IRS was pending in the Southern District of Florida, the issues are national.

The case involves the federal Judgment Fund, federal settlement authority, executive-branch spending, and constitutional separation of powers.

Those issues can matter in federal litigation across the country, including in Florida, North Carolina, the Eleventh Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

For businesses, organizations, public-interest groups, government accountability advocates, and referring counsel, the lesson is clear: when the government uses litigation to justify major public spending, the statutory basis matters.

A settlement may end a case.

It should not become a shortcut around Congress.

Authority Block

Key legal authorities implicated by the Trump v. IRS Anti-Weaponization Fund dispute include:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution;

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1);

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60;

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11;

31 U.S.C. § 1304, the Judgment Fund;

28 U.S.C. § 2414, payment of judgments and compromise settlements;

28 U.S.C. § 2672 and § 2677, Federal Tort Claims Act settlement authority;

31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), the Purpose Statute;

31 U.S.C. § 1341, the Antideficiency Act;

31 U.S.C. § 1501, documentary evidence of obligations;

31 U.S.C. § 3302, public money and miscellaneous receipts principles;

31 U.S.C. § 3324, advance payments.

Key Takeaway

The latest Trump v. IRS filings show that the Anti-Weaponization Fund controversy remains an important government oversight issue.

The Court denied additional amicus briefing, including Biazzo Law’s requests, because it determined at each procedural stage that additional amicus participation was not needed. But Biazzo Law’s proposed filings still placed a distinct public-money issue on the public docket.

That issue is simple but important:

Settlement authority does not automatically equal appropriations authority.

If the Executive Branch uses a settlement to create a future-claimant compensation program, the public is entitled to ask where Congress authorized that spending.

That is not a partisan question.

It is a constitutional question.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Trump v. IRS?

Trump v. IRS is a federal case filed by President Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization against the IRS and Treasury Department relating to alleged unlawful access and disclosure of tax-return information.

What is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was described in settlement-related materials as a proposed claims process for future claimants who alleged harm from “Lawfare” or “Weaponization.” Public filings describe it as tied to a proposed $1.776 billion funding structure.

Why is the Judgment Fund important?

The Judgment Fund is a permanent federal appropriation used to pay certain eligible judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and costs against the United States. The dispute concerns whether it can be used to capitalize a broader future-claimant compensation program.

What did Biazzo Law file?

Biazzo Law filed a proposed amicus submission at DE 66 and a renewed, narrower proposed supplemental amicus submission at DE 91.

What issue did Biazzo Law raise?

Biazzo Law raised a narrow statutory and appropriations-law question: whether settlement statutes and the Judgment Fund authorize the Executive Branch to fund an open-ended future-claimant compensation program for nonparties.

Did the Court accept Biazzo Law’s amicus brief?

No. The Court denied Biazzo Law’s first motion at DE 66 on June 2, 2026, explaining that it was awaiting Plaintiffs’ briefing and saw no need for additional amicus participation at that juncture. After Plaintiffs filed their response, Biazzo Law filed a renewed and narrower motion at DE 91. The Court later denied DE 91 and other amici motions at DE 103 because it found the case sufficiently briefed. Neither order rejected Biazzo Law’s Judgment Fund or appropriations-law argument on the merits.

Why does that still matter?

Because Biazzo Law’s filings placed the Judgment Fund and appropriations issue on the public docket. Public legal accountability often depends on identifying and preserving issues before courts, the press, and the public.

Did the Court find fraud on the court?

Based on the materials reviewed for this update, the Court had not made a final finding that fraud on the court occurred. The filings raised serious allegations and legal questions, but allegations are not findings.

Is this a partisan issue?

No. Biazzo Law analyzes this as a nonpartisan government oversight issue involving public money, constitutional structure, separation of powers, and statutory authority.

Can Biazzo Law help with constitutional litigation or amicus briefs?

Yes. Biazzo Law handles constitutional litigation, government oversight matters, federal appeals, U.S. Supreme Court strategy, and amicus curiae briefing.

Related Links

Link “Trump v. IRS, the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the Constitutional Fight Over Government Power” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/trump-v-irs-the-anti-weaponization-fund-and-the-constitutional-fight-over-government-power

Link “Could Trump Face Criminal Exposure Over the Anti-Weaponization Fund Settlement?” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/could-trump-face-criminal-exposure-over-the-anti-weaponization-fund-settlement-fraud-on-the-court

Link “Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawgovernmentoversight

Link “Biazzo Law U.S. Supreme Court Practice” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawscotuspractice

Link “Constitutional Law Attorney” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/constitutional-law-attorney

Link “Amicus Curiae Briefs” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/amicus-curiae-briefs

Link “Federal Appellate Litigation” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/federal-appellate-litigation