Appeals court won’t block sanctions against Trump’s lawyers over weaponization fund
by Stephen Dinan · The Washington TimesA federal appeals court declined to block sanctions against President Trump’s lawyers who struck the deal that created the now-defunct anti-weaponization fund, saying Tuesday that the lower court appears had reason to find “collusion and bad faith.”
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there may be reason to intervene later, but for now the judge’s order referring one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers for a bar review and suspending another’s permission to argue in the case will stand.
The three-judge appeals panel, in an unsigned ruling, also said a gag order that the Trump lawyers complained about was narrow, and didn’t rise to the level of conflict with the First Amendment.
People were interested in these podcasts
The panel consisted of two Obama appointees and one Trump pick.
They were reviewing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who said Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and his Justice Department colluded to try to create the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund.
She found the behavior so extreme that she referred Alejandro Brito, one of the Trump lawyers, for an ethics review. And she revoked the ability of another Trump lawyer, Daniel Epstein, to take part in the case.
She also ordered the parties — Mr. Trump, his sons and their business, as well as the Justice Department — not to refer to the settlement that created the anti-weaponization fund.
Judge Williams said the fund’s creation was a product of collusion.
Advertisement Advertisement
The appeals court said the judge hasn’t concluded her handling of the matter so it’s premature for the lawyers to challenge the sanctions against them.
And the appeals court said the gag order on referring to the settlement is narrow, only preventing the parties from saying a final settlement exists. And it only applies to particular legal proceedings.
The circuit judges said they would defer to that.
“We generally give district courts wide discretion in interpreting their own orders,” the appeals court said.
Contact the author
Stephen Dinan
Follow author updates Follow Click to follow. Manage followed authors