Federal Judge Declines Immediate Block On DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund But Questions DOJ Retreat
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, denied CREW's request for a temporary restraining order to immediately block implementation of the roughly $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund in Washington, D.C.[1]
Leon said he was "not persuaded a live controversy remains" and accepted the Justice Department's representation that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has vowed not to move forward with the fund.[1] But Leon warned the department, "Don't play possum with this court!" CBS News
On January 29, 2026, former President Donald Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and Treasury for $10 billion over leaked tax returns, later settling on May 18, 2026. Under the settlement the plaintiffs dropped multiple claims and the Justice Department agreed to create the roughly $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund drawn from the Treasury Judgment Fund.
At Wednesday's roughly 30-minute hearing, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block repeatedly cited Blanche's June 2 congressional testimony that the administration is "not moving forward" with creating the fund.[1] Block told the court he did not know why the department would not formally rescind the order establishing the fund and argued the case is moot because no money has been paid.[1]
CREW attorney Nikhel Sur said Blanche's public statements were "highly unusual" because the settlement order has not been rescinded in writing.[1] A separate federal judge in Virginia has temporarily blocked the fund through at least Friday, June 12, 2026.[1]
The mainstream summary does not mention the historical context of the Treasury Judgment Fund, which has been a permanent, indefinite appropriation since 1956, available for court judgments and DOJ settlements when agency funds are unavailable. This background is crucial as it underscores the fund's established nature and the legal framework surrounding its creation, which may influence perceptions of its legitimacy and use. The summary also omits the fact that a similar fund was established during the Obama administration to address discrimination claims, drawing from the same Judgment Fund, highlighting a precedent in the DOJ's handling of such financial settlements. This context could suggest that the current fund is part of a broader pattern rather than an isolated incident, which might alter public perception of its intent and implications.
Additionally, while the mainstream account notes Judge Leon's warning to the DOJ, it does not fully capture the implications of his skepticism regarding the department's assurances that the fund will not be implemented. This skepticism reflects a deeper concern about the DOJ's accountability and transparency, which has been echoed in social media discussions, emphasizing a potential crisis of trust in the institution. The judge's remarks, coupled with the separate ruling from a Virginia judge that temporarily halts the fund, suggest a more complex legal landscape than the summary conveys, indicating ongoing judicial scrutiny of the DOJ's actions.
Show source details & analysis (3 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
The Treasury Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation created by Congress in 1956 with no statutory dollar cap or fiscal year limitation, available to pay most court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements against the United States when agency funds are unavailable.
Judgment Fund — U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service
The Keepseagle litigation resulted in a similar DOJ-created claims fund of approximately $680-760 million drawn from the Judgment Fund to address decades of alleged discrimination claims against the federal government.
Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Department of Justice
📌 Key Facts
- On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied CREW's request for a temporary restraining order to immediately block implementation of the roughly $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- Leon said he was “not persuaded a live controversy remains,” accepted DOJ's representation that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has vowed not to move forward with the fund, and warned the department, “Don't play possum with this court.”
- During the roughly 30-minute June 10 hearing, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block repeatedly cited Blanche's June 2 congressional testimony that the administration is “not moving forward” with creating the nearly $1.8 billion fund.
- DOJ maintained in court that the fund is not moving forward even though former President Trump continues to publicly defend it; Block told the court that Trump's comments do not constitute “a direction to move forward with the fund.”
- CREW attorney Nikhel Sur argued Blanche's refusal to formally memorialize a rescission of the May 18 settlement was “highly unusual,” saying the fund's charter remains “in full force and effect” because the settlement order has not been modified in writing by the parties.
- Leon denied only the emergency TRO and said he will rule separately on CREW's request for a preliminary injunction, leaving longer-term relief under consideration; a separate block order from a federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday, June 12, 2026.
- In court, DOJ attorney Andrew Block twice said he did not know why DOJ would not formally rescind the order establishing the fund and argued the case is moot because no board members have been appointed, no processes adopted, no claims submitted and no money paid.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied CREW's request for a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of DOJ's roughly $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- Leon said he was "not persuaded a live controversy remains" and accepted DOJ's argument that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has vowed not to move forward with the fund, but warned the department, "Don't play possum with this court."
- Leon stated he will rule separately on CREW's request for a preliminary injunction, leaving longer-term relief still under consideration.
- In the hearing, DOJ attorney Andrew Block told Leon he did not know why DOJ would not formally rescind the order establishing the fund and argued the case is moot because no board members have been appointed, no processes adopted, no claims submitted and no money paid.
- CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus argued the fund's charter remains "in full force and effect" and that Blanche's statements are not a valid legal rescission because the settlement order has not been modified in writing by the parties.
- On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., denied CREW's request for a temporary restraining order to immediately block implementation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- During the roughly 30-minute June 10 hearing, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's June 2 congressional testimony that the administration is 'not moving forward' with creating the nearly $1.8 billion fund.
- Judge Leon said he agreed the case appears moot for now and that he was not persuaded there is currently an issue for the court to decide regarding creation of the fund, but he warned DOJ, 'Don't play possum with this court!'
- CREW attorney Nikhel Sur argued that Blanche's refusal to formally memorialize a rescission of the May 18 settlement was 'highly unusual', and Leon twice asked DOJ why it would not simply rescind the order establishing the fund; Block responded, 'I don't know.'
- Leon denied only the emergency TRO and indicated he is still considering CREW's request for a longer-term block on the fund, while a separate block order from a federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday, June 12, 2026.
- DOJ maintained in court that the fund is not moving forward even though former President Trump continues to publicly defend it; Block told the court that Trump's comments do not constitute 'a direction to move forward with the fund.'