Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, as part of a multistate coalition, has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to review and reopen the recently dismissed lawsuit Trump v. IRS. The litigation was initiated in January 2026 by President Donald Trump, his family, and his business organization against the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The lawsuit sought damages over the unauthorized disclosure of President Trump’s tax return information by a government contractor.

Background of the Case

Before the case concluded, the District Court raised questions regarding its own jurisdiction and noted a potential lack of real adversity between the parties, given that the leadership of the sued federal agencies serves at the pleasure of the president. The court ordered both sides to submit legal briefs addressing whether a true case or controversy existed. Shortly before those briefings were due, President Trump voluntarily dismissed the claims after entering into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The terms of the agreement grant President Trump and his family immunity from all investigations and prosecutions related to past conduct. Additionally, the agreement requires the DOJ to establish a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization” fund.

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition argue that the lawsuit and subsequent settlement were collusive actions designed to circumvent constitutional limits on presidential authority. The coalition contends that the settlement terms violate basic principles of contract law, are untethered to the actual legal merit of the underlying tax disclosure claims, and potentially exceed the DOJ’s legal settlement authority.

Implications and Next Steps

The District Court is currently evaluating whether to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a court to set aside a judgment or dismissal if there is evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the involved parties. The coalition of attorneys general asserts that allowing the settlement to stand would negatively impact the separation of powers, public confidence in the judicial system, and the established authorities of state law enforcement officers.

Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.