CBS News97%
Judge rebukes Trump and DOJ over IRS lawsuit, refers lawyer for disciplinary proceedings 39%
7/14/2026, 2:16:51 AM
BS Summary: This video contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6.7% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 81 faulty-reasoning hits from 654 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.4% and a BS Rank of 39% (9,608 of 15,517 videos). This video is better (less manipulative) than 61.90% of the video peer group.
A federal judge imposed professional penalties against lawyers representing President Trump in a lawsuit against the IRS.
The lawsuit concerned the leak of Trump's tax returns and resulted in a settlement that barred the IRS from pursuing tax claims against Trump, members of his family, and affiliated companies.
The federal judge said the suit was brought for an improper purpose and harshly criticized the Justice Department for its handling of the case.
CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson joining us live now.
So, Jessica, let's talk about this.
The judge has accused Trump and his lawyers of having manipulated the court system.
What is her reasoning?
>> So, in part, I think what you just said, that this suit was brought for an improper purpose.
And what does that really mean?
I think what the judge was saying throughout the decision was this was actually never, number one, an adversarial process.
That the Trump attorneys and the Department of Justice attorneys were actually acting in concert.
I believe she used the word collusion.
When it comes to lawsuits in America, we, particularly in federal court, what we know is that they need to be an adversarial process.
There needs to be an actual case or controversy.
I talked to my students about making sure that federal judges cannot issue advisory opinions.
And what I think the judge was really saying is you went to federal court.
This was never adversarial.
You had an improper purpose.
And that improper purpose was basically to try and get a federal judge to bless a settlement that never should have been in court in the first place.
And for those reasons, that's why you see the judge say this was a misuse of the judicial process.
It threatened the integrity of the judicial process.
And again, that's why I think you see those referrals to the state bar and those suggestions that there be investigations into the Department of Justice attorneys who were part of this case.
Essentially, the judge saying, "Were you actually undermining your duties as an attorney when you agreed to bring and defend and settle this case?"
>> So, what consequences could we see as a result of the judge's decision?
>> So, obviously, the immediate consequence is that settlement fund, the 1776 fund, is void.
That also means that, as you said, President Trump can now be audited.
Part of the settlement was that he could not be audited.
And I think what you also see in terms of consequences, of course, there will be political consequences.
In terms of legal consequences, you see an affirmation of the idea that if you walk into court, you can't be colluding with the other side.
This needs to be an actual adversarial conflict.
And you can't use a judge to bless something that should never have been a case in the first place.
>> So, the judge's criticism of the DOJ, it comes as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche hopes to be confirmed to the position permanently.
But could her words impact the confirmation hearing, which is Wednesday?
>> So, yes and no.
I think they will dominate the confirmation hearings in terms of whether or not they will impact, obviously, that's a political question.
And I think the main question when it comes to those confirmation hearings are how many Republicans are there in the Senate and what does the vote count look like, not necessarily what happened in this case.
But it certainly, I think, will dominate the questioning.
Particularly, Democrats will say to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was acting at the time that the settlement was made, "What did you know? When did you know it? Did you think this was an appropriate use of judicial resources and a judge's time?"
>> Jessica Levinson, Jessica, thank you.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.