House Judiciary leaders are pressing a misconduct review of an Obama-appointed Florida judge who sanctioned President Trump’s lawyers after they voluntarily dropped their IRS lawsuit.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Darrell Issa have asked the Judicial Conference of the United States to examine U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida over a July 13 sanctions order aimed at two of President Donald Trump’s attorneys.
The order came after the plaintiffs had already ended the case. Jordan and Issa say the timing, the legal basis, and the judge’s reliance on an outside brief raise serious questions about impartiality and the limits of judicial power.
Williams, appointed by former President Barack Obama, referred lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for possible discipline. She also barred lawyer Daniel Epstein from practicing under her jurisdiction for at least a year.
Trump, his adult sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump Organization filed the suit against the IRS in early 2026. They sought $10 billion in damages after IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn leaked the president’s tax returns to the press. Littlejohn was later sentenced to five years in federal prison.
In May, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. Shortly afterward, the administration announced a settlement package. Under the terms described, Trump would receive no personal compensation. The deal included a formal apology from the federal government, a bar on the IRS auditing Trump or his family, and $1.776 billion for an “anti-weaponization fund.” Other courts have since blocked that fund.
Williams issued her sanctions order on July 13, after the notice of voluntary dismissal. The House letter stresses that point as the core problem.
In their letter to the Judicial Conference, Jordan and Issa wrote:
"there is evidence that Judge Williams abused her judicial authority and violated fundamental tenets of judicial impartiality in connection with an unusual and unsupported order that imposed sanctions after the plaintiffs voluntarily had dismissed the underlying action."
They added:
"Judge Williams issued her July 13 order after the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case, ending the dispute between the parties,"
Williams invoked the court’s inherent authority to impose the sanctions. Jordan’s committee says it knows of no Eleventh Circuit precedent that applies that power in this way after a voluntary dismissal, especially on the strength of briefing from nonparties on a question the court never decided.
The letter states:
"Although Judge Williams invoked the court's inherent authority to impose sanctions, the Committee is not aware of Eleventh Circuit precedent applying inherent sanctions authority after a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed a case based on briefing by partisan nonparties on an unrelated question the court never decided."
Jordan has called the order’s timing “suspect.” The committee contends Williams leaned on an amicus brief from Democracy Defenders Action. That group, described in the Fox News Digital report as a left-wing judicial activist organization, said it filed on behalf of 35 former federal judges. The brief urged Williams to reopen the case despite the parties’ dismissal and accused both sides of “fraud” over the settlement.
Williams accused the plaintiffs of purposely manipulating the courts to lock in the settlement. The House letter treats that post-dismissal move as an overreach that turns a closed dispute into a vehicle for punishment.
Issa chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on courts and co-led the letter. He did not say much about what he sees as a pattern of hostile judging aimed at Trump and his counsel.
Issa told Fox News Digital:
"The rogue federal judges who make up the Trump Resistance in Robes continue to disappoint but never surprise. Judge Williams hasn't only shown her liberal contempt for President Trump, but crossed a bright ethical line by going after his attorneys."
Going after the lawyers after the clients have walked away is the bright line Issa draws. Sanctions that brand counsel and cabin their ability to practice are not a slap on the wrist. A Florida Bar referral can shadow a career. A year-long bar from a federal judge’s courtroom is a concrete professional penalty.
Jordan and Issa asked the Judicial Conference to review the matter and decide whether it warrants referral to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit or other appropriate action. They set a hard reply deadline: inform the committee of steps taken no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2026.
Their letter closes with the institutional stakes:
"Judge Williams's conduct risks undermining public confidence in the federal courts. Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Judicial Conference review this matter, including whether it warrants referral to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit or other appropriate action, and that you inform the Committee of steps taken no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2026."
Public confidence is the point. Federal judges hold enormous power over litigants and the lawyers who represent them. When a case is over by the parties’ own choice, the public expects the file to stay closed unless clear law and clear facts demand more. A sanctions order built after dismissal, tied to an outside activist brief, and aimed at the president’s counsel is exactly the kind of sequence that feeds doubt about equal rules in politicized cases.
The underlying dispute began with a concrete injury. An IRS contractor leaked private tax information. That leak produced a criminal sentence and a civil claim for massive damages. The plaintiffs then chose to dismiss and accept a settlement frame that traded cash to Trump personally for structural terms: an apology, an audit bar, and a large anti-weaponization fund meant to answer what Trump’s side cast as years of lawfare.
Democrats and critics of the deal backed skepticism of that settlement. Williams’ order aligned with the view that the parties had gamed the courts. Jordan’s letter flips the accountability question: if the parties ended the case, on what clean legal footing does a trial judge keep punishing their lawyers based on nonparty briefing about a deal the court did not decide?
That is the misconduct claim now teed up for the Judicial Conference. Not a policy disagreement about tax leaks or settlement design. A process claim about inherent authority used after voluntary dismissal, with real professional consequences for Brito and Epstein.
If federal courts police lawyers after the docket is clear, and do it on activist amicus pressure, ordinary litigants will reasonably wonder whose rules apply when the defendant is the government and the plaintiff is Donald Trump.
