Regardless of how many things one thinks Trump has done poorly, one thing he’s excelled at is taking advantage of his position for personal and familiar financial gain. Hey, everybody has their strengths. One example of this is his suit against the Internal Revenue Service seeking damages in the amount of $10 billion for an employee of a contractor releasing his tax return. Before the Department of Justice answered the complaint or entered an appearance, Trump moved to extend the defendants’ time “so the Parties can “engage in discussions designed to resolve the matter[.]”

Before deciding the motion, Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida raised a very interesting question: Did the court have jurisdiction if there was no legitimate case or controversy? The judge began with a bit of the irony presented by Trump’s suit.

On January 29, 2026, Plaintiffs President¹ Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”), Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the United States Department of the Treasury.

¹ In their Complaint, Plaintiffs state that “President Trump is bring[ing] this suit in his personal capacity.” (DE 1 at 1). The Court notes, however, that President Trump’s political title is used in the caption and throughout the Complaint.

Is the plaintiff Donald or the president? While some will ask why it can’t be both, the answer leads directly into the crux of the problem.

In the instant case, Defendants have not yet filed any notices of appearance. Nonetheless, the Parties have advised the Court that they are engaging in discussions to resolve this matter. Moreover, although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction.² Indeed, President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation.3 Accordingly, it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.

² President Trump has issued multiple executive orders which shape the relationship of the agencies of the executive branch to his presidency. For example, “[n]o employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law . . . that contravenes the President[’s] . . . opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to . . . positions advanced in litigation[.]” Exec. Order No. 14215, § 7. One such employee of the executive branch, the Attorney General, has a statutory obligation to defend the IRS when it is hailed into court, but then is ostensibly required by executive mandate to adhere to the President’s opinion on a matter of law in such a case. This raises questions over whether the Parties here are truly antagonistic to each other.

When the decisionmakers for the defendants work at the pleasure of the plaintiff, and are, at least as far as the president is concerned, obliged to do his bidding, can there be any controversy? Whether Trump tells his currently acting attorney general and former criminal defense attorney, Todd Blanche, to pony up and how much or merely leaves it in his discretion as he desperately seeks Trump’s approval to be appointed attorney general, can he take a position adverse to Trump? Well, he can, of course, but would he?

A key characteristic of the case or controversy requirement is the existence of adverseness, or “a dispute between parties who face each other in an adversary proceeding.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 242 (1937). “There must be an honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights by one individual against another, which is neither feigned nor collusive.” Muransky, 979 F.3d at 981 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Typically, adverseness is found in a situation where one party is asserting its right and the other party is resisting. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd. v. Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood, LLC, 43 F.4th 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Consequently, if there is no adverseness, there is no case or controversy. See Druhan v. Am. Mut. Life, 166 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 1999).

Blanche may be many things, but Trump’s adversary he is not. It’s bad enough that the DoJ gifted Michael Flynn and Carter Page each $1.25 million of taxpayer money for being Trump’s loyal soldiers, but to bestow upon Trump $10 billion, or any billion for that matter, with the imprimatur of the federal courts to perpetuate a charade of legitimacy pushes the corruption beyond the limits Judge Williams will endure. At least, let’s hope so, as she’s only asked for memos on the question and has yet to rule that no case and controversy exists.