- President Trump appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on August twelve, twenty twenty-six, to pause a sanctions order.
- Judge Kathleen Williams ruled the IRS lawsuit was brought in bad faith and described it as collusive.
- The motion challenges a unconstitutional gag order that restricts the President from discussing the one point seven seven six billion dollar settlement.
President Donald Trump asked the Eleventh Circuit on August 12 to pause the sanctions order entered in his IRS lawsuit while the appellate court reviews his challenge. The emergency motion seeks immediate relief from an order issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams in the Southern District of Florida.
The appeal is docketed as No. 26-12692. It follows Williams’ August 5 rejection of an expedited stay request, where she found that the plaintiffs had not shown “good cause.”
Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator
The lower-court dispute is Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW. Williams ruled on July 13 that the litigation had been brought in bad faith and imposed sanctions that included restrictions on using the purported settlement in official proceedings and referrals involving lawyers and government officials.
The appellate court’s immediate question is narrower than the underlying dispute. It must decide whether to suspend enforcement while the appeal proceeds.
Trump’s lawyers say the sanctions ruling represents an “extraordinary abuse” of the district court’s authority. They also challenge a speech restriction described in the filing as a gag order.
The order remains operative after the district court denied emergency relief. The Eleventh Circuit now has the request.
Trump’s motion targets sanctions and a speech restriction
The August 12 filing asks the appellate court to grant an immediate stay. Trump’s lawyers argue that “a stay would harm no one” and say the order interferes with the president’s ability to discuss the purported settlement in official capacities.
The filing characterizes the restriction as a “sweeping, unconstitutional, and unlawful gag order” that “wrongly silences the sitting President.”
“This appeal arises from the district court’s extraordinary abuse of its sanctions power,”
The motion does not itself resolve whether the sanctions were lawful. The Eleventh Circuit must first decide whether enforcement should wait while it examines the appeal.
The underlying suit invoked 26 U.S.C. § 7431, a statute concerning unauthorized disclosure of tax-return information. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization filed it on January 29, 2026, seeking $10 billion from the IRS.
The case arose from the 2019-2020 disclosure of Trump’s tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. The filing placed the tax records dispute before the Southern District of Florida.
A proposed settlement brought the parties under scrutiny
The parties reached a proposed settlement on May 18, 2026. The agreement included a proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate Trump supporters.
It also called for a permanent shield from future IRS audits for the Trump family. The proposed arrangement prompted scrutiny because Trump was suing an agency under executive control while serving as president.
Williams questioned whether the parties had the adversity ordinarily expected in litigation. In her 56-page sanctions order, she described the settlement as “collusive” and a “fraud on the court.”
The judge wrote that the case had been brought for an “improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact.”
The July 13 order barred the parties from relying on the purported settlement in official proceedings. It also referred at least one lawyer for possible discipline and required monetary reimbursement for amici curiae, or friends of the court.
The proposed agreement therefore remains the subject of the appeal rather than an operative resolution of the tax-record dispute. Its fund and audit-protection provisions are tied to the appellate challenge.
The sanctions order names lawyers and outside groups
The order affected lawyers connected to the proposed agreement and groups that opposed it. The actions and requested reimbursements were different in form.
| Person or group | Action in the sanctions order | Forum, amount or duration |
|---|---|---|
| Alejandro Brito | Referred for disciplinary review | Florida Bar |
| Daniel Epstein | Barred from appearing | Southern District of Florida, one year |
| Todd Blanche | Referred for disciplinary review | New York State Bar |
| Stanley Woodward | Referred for disciplinary review | District of Columbia Bar |
| 35 former federal judges | Requested reimbursement for legal work opposing the settlement | $4,610.83 |
| Former IRS officials | Requested reimbursement for legal work opposing the settlement | $39,000 |
Brito served as lead counsel for Trump. Epstein served as co-counsel.
Blanche was identified as acting attorney general, while Woodward was identified as associate attorney general. The order referred Blanche over his role in signing the settlement and Woodward over his involvement.
Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general has stalled in the Senate in connection with the dispute. The supplied material identifies the referrals and the forums, but the appellate motion will determine whether those consequences remain in effect during review.
The former judges and former IRS officials sought reimbursement as amici curiae. Their requests were separate from the bar referrals and Epstein’s appearance restriction.
Williams questioned the case’s adversarial structure
The district court’s concerns centered on the relationship between the plaintiffs and the government lawyers representing the IRS. Trump sued the agency while serving as president, and the proposed settlement would have created a fund and audit protection for his family.
Williams questioned the parties’ adversity. She concluded that the lawsuit’s stated path toward settlement did not provide a viable basis in law or fact, according to the July 13 order.
Her ruling imposed non-monetary sanctions rather than relying only on a damages award. Those measures included limits on the settlement’s use in official proceedings, a speech-related restriction, referrals and reimbursement requests.
The sanctions followed the parties’ May agreement. The appellate court’s stay decision will address whether those measures should operate before the merits appeal is decided.
Trump’s lawyers are asking for emergency relief because Williams already rejected a stay request on August 5. That denial left the appellate court as the next forum for seeking temporary protection.
The Eleventh Circuit will decide what pauses first
The court can decide whether to halt enforcement while it reviews No. 26-12692. A temporary stay would concern the operation of the sanctions order, not necessarily the final outcome of the appeal.
The requested relief reaches the order’s restrictions and the speech-related provision. It also places the professional referrals and reimbursement requests within the broader dispute over whether the district court properly used its sanctions power.
The settlement’s proposed fund totals $1.776 billion. The audit shield would have protected the Trump family from future IRS audits, but the arrangement has not become an operative settlement while the order and appeal remain unresolved.
The Eleventh Circuit’s next action will determine whether Williams’ sanctions remain enforceable during the appellate review. The emergency motion was filed on August 12, and the case remains pending as of August 13, 2026.
