Jim Jordan is demanding a probe of an Obama-appointed Florida judge who sanctioned Trump's lawyers after they dropped their IRS case, Republicans call it abuse of power.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has asked the Judicial Conference of the United States to review U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams after she hit two of President Donald Trump’s attorneys with sanctions once the underlying lawsuit was already gone.
The letter, co-led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel’s courts subcommittee, says the Southern District of Florida jurist abused her authority and broke basic rules of judicial impartiality. Williams, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued the July 13 order after the plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their case against the IRS in May.
Fox News Digital first reported the push, which gives the Judicial Conference a hard deadline: tell the committee what steps it has taken no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2026.
Trump, his adult sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in early 2026. They sought $10 billion in damages after an agency contractor, Charles Littlejohn, leaked the president’s tax returns to the press. Littlejohn later drew a five-year federal prison sentence.
Trump filed in his personal capacity. In May, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit. Shortly after, the administration announced a settlement that included $1.776 billion for an “anti-weaponization fund” meant for people hit by what officials described as “lawfare” under the Biden administration. Trump himself would take no compensation. The deal also called for a formal apology from the federal government and a bar on future IRS audits of Trump or his family.
That fund proposal has since been blocked by other courts and drawn bipartisan pushback. The dispute between the parties was over. Then came the July order.
Williams accused the plaintiffs of purposely manipulating the courts to lock in the settlement. She invoked the court’s inherent authority, sanctioned two of the president’s lawyers, referred Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for potential discipline, and barred Daniel Epstein from practicing under her jurisdiction for at least a year.
Jordan and Issa zeroed in on the sequence. In their letter they wrote:
"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."
They added that the committee knows of no Eleventh Circuit precedent that lets a judge impose inherent-authority sanctions after a voluntary dismissal, based on briefing from partisan nonparties, on a question the court never decided.
The letter ties Williams’ action to an amicus brief from Democracy Defenders Action. The group 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.
Jordan and Issa say the judge rested her post-dismissal sanctions on that outside filing. They call the timing of the July 13 order “suspect” and argue her conduct risks public confidence in the federal courts.
Their formal ask is plain. They 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 asked the Judicial Conference to review the matter, including whether it warrants referral to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit or other action, and to report back by the November deadline.
Issa did not soften the point in a statement to 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."
That charge lands in a broader fight over how far federal judges may go when a case is already closed and the parties have walked away.
Jordan has made a habit of pressing institutions he says ducked accountability. His committee’s work has ranged from immigration enforcement failures to special-counsel overreach, including a 57-page report accusing Jack Smith of trying to influence the 2024 election and referring him for criminal charges.
The same Judiciary apparatus has hammered local prosecutors over soft policies. Jordan previously pressed Fairfax County’s top prosecutor on immigration and crime decisions that left communities exposed.
Related House findings showed Fairfax County ignored 1,670 ICE detainers while illegal immigrant offenders walked free. Separate Senate material detailed how Jack Smith’s operation seized personal data on 639,000 GOP donors and MAGA buyers. The Williams letter fits the same pattern: name the official act, demand a record, and force a response on the calendar.
The Judicial Conference is the national policy arm of the federal courts. A referral to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit would put the matter inside the circuit that covers Florida. Jordan and Issa framed the stakes around public trust, not a private grievance.
They closed with a direct charge and a clock:
"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."
The lawyers face real professional harm in the meantime. Brito is before the Florida Bar. Epstein is locked out of Williams’ courtroom for at least a year. The plaintiffs had already ended the fight. The amicus brief came from a partisan group, not a party to the case. The court never decided the question the brief pressed.
Williams’ order still stands as described. The committee says it cannot find Eleventh Circuit authority for using inherent sanctions power in that posture. The conference now has a date certain to explain what, if anything, it will do.
When a case is dismissed and the parties walk away, the courtroom is supposed to go quiet, not reopen through an outsider’s brief to punish the lawyers who already left.
