What Is the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit?
The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit is Eleventh Circuit Appeal No. 26-12692, a challenge to the sanctions Judge Kathleen Williams imposed on July 13, 2026. Those sanctions came from the Southern District of Florida case Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609. The appeal asks a higher court to review them.
The appellants are President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, the Trump Organization, and attorneys Alejandro Brito and Daniel Epstein. The appellees include 35 former federal judges who asked the district court to reopen the case. The original damages claims are covered on the Trump IRS lawsuit page. This page tracks only the appeal.
“The appellants, some of whom were the plaintiffs below, move for an order staying aspects of the district court’s post-judgment sanctions order pending appeal. After review of the record and the parties’ briefing, we deny the motion.”
Source: Order of the Court, President Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., No. 26-12692 (11th Cir. Sept. 29, 2026), Document 68
Why Was the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit Filed?
The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit was filed because the Trump plaintiffs and their attorneys want the Eleventh Circuit to undo the July 13, 2026 sanctions order. Trump, his sons, the Trump Organization, Brito, and Epstein filed their notice of appeal on July 31, 2026. They asked for an expedited stay the same day. A stay motion followed in the Eleventh Circuit on August 12, 2026, titled a time sensitive motion to stay the sanctions order and the fee proceeding.
The Eleventh Circuit's September 29 order describes two main attacks. The appellants say the district court lacked a sufficient basis to find collusion and bad faith. They also say the speech limit is a broad gag order and a prior restraint that violates the First Amendment.
The government filed a separate appeal. The Justice Department's notice, dated September 11, 2026, was signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, according to Democracy Docket. A Trump legal spokesperson did not address the lawyers' sanctions. The spokesperson pointed instead to the original leak of Trump's tax returns, according to Scripps News.
DLA Piper attorneys Christopher Oprison, Tal Aburos, and Rachel Horton, plus Josh Halpern of JH Legal, appear as counsel on the August 12 stay motion.
What Harms Does the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit Allege?
The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit alleges four harms from Judge Williams's sanctions order: a limit on calling the agreement a settlement, a bar referral, a pro hac vice denial, and fee exposure. These are the burdens the appellants ask the Eleventh Circuit to lift. They are not injuries to a class of claimants.
No court has yet decided whether the sanctions should be reversed. The September 29 ruling decided only whether to pause them during the appeal.
Limit on Calling the Agreement a Settlement
A prior restraint is a court or government order that stops speech before it happens, which courts generally view with strong suspicion under the First Amendment.
The appellants argue the speech sanction is a broad gag order that blocks any mention of the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed at the stay stage. It wrote that the sanction followed a chance to respond and rested on findings of collusion and bad faith.
The panel read the limit narrowly. It bars the parties from citing the agreement as evidence of a settlement reached in this matter, and only in official proceedings. The panel also found a strong showing that this sanction is likely appealable, unlike the sanctions on the two lawyers.
Florida Bar Referral for Alejandro Brito
A bar referral is a court's notice to a state lawyer-discipline authority that an attorney's conduct may deserve review, and it does not itself impose discipline.
Judge Williams referred Brito to the Florida Bar to consider whether disciplinary action is appropriate. The Eleventh Circuit said a mere referral to a state bar disciplinary committee is not a coercive sanction. It cited its own 2003 decision in United States v. McCorkle. The panel found the appeal likely premature as to the referral.
The panel also noted that attorneys can appeal sanctions after final judgment, so reputational harm is reviewable later. The Florida Bar, not the court, decides what happens next, as The Hill reported.
One-Year Pro Hac Vice Denial for Daniel Epstein
Pro hac vice admission lets a lawyer licensed elsewhere appear in a single case in a court where the lawyer is not licensed.
The sanctions order requires that any Epstein application for pro hac vice admission in the Southern District of Florida be denied for one year or until further court order. The Eleventh Circuit cited the Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Cunningham v. Hamilton County. That decision held that sanctions on counsel under a federal rule are not immediately appealable.
The panel therefore denied a stay as to the individual sanctions on Brito and Epstein. It cited significant doubts about appellate jurisdiction.
Attorneys' Fee Exposure
Fee shifting is a court order that requires one side to reimburse another side's legal costs.
Judge Williams declined to order monetary sanctions in the July 13 order. She gave the parties time to file memoranda on attorneys' fees instead. Those fee proceedings were still ongoing when the Eleventh Circuit ruled.
The appellants asked the panel to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the fee proceedings. The panel declined. It saw no reason to act before an order definitively resolves the fee matter.
What Is the Current Status of the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit?
The current status of the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit is that the Eleventh Circuit denied a stay on September 29, 2026, so the sanctions stay in force during the appeal. The merits have not been decided. The two entries below track the appeal and the district court proceedings that continue beneath it, as of October 26, 2026.
President Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., Eleventh Circuit No. 26-12692
The appellants moved for a stay on August 12, 2026. A three-judge panel of Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, and Kevin Newsom denied it in a 22-page order on September 29, 2026. Media reports noted no dissent.
The panel reasoned in four steps. First, it doubted appellate jurisdiction over the sanctions on Brito and Epstein, because the district court has not yet ruled on reopening the case or on fees. Second, it found the speech sanction likely appealable. Third, it found no strong showing of clear error in the collusion and bad faith findings, because the appellants offered no evidence. Fourth, it found no strong showing on the First Amendment challenge.
| Appeal Number | 26-12692 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
| Order Appealed | July 13, 2026 sanctions order of Judge Williams (D.E. 106) |
| Stay Panel | Judges Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Newsom |
| Stay Ruling | Denied on September 29, 2026 (Document 68) |
| Government Appeal | Notice filed September 11, 2026, docketed September 14, 2026 |
| Merits Appeal | Pending |
The panel stressed that its stay decision does not bind the merits panel, and that it carries all jurisdictional issues with the case. It also carried a motion to intervene from John Koskinen and others with the case. It denied stay-stage amicus motions from the Oversight Project and America First Legal.
A docket entry reported by court-tracking sites says the clerk rescinded a briefing schedule that had set the appellants' brief for September 28. The clerk cited the notice of cross appeal and promised a new schedule. A Justia listing shows the cross appeal as No. 26-13258. This review found no oral argument date.
Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Southern District of Florida
Judge Williams has not ruled on the former judges' request to reopen the case and set aside the dismissal. Her July 13 order says it is not a final determination of any fraud on the court. It also leaves open later relief under Rule 60.
The district court denied its own stay of the non-monetary sanctions at D.E. 130. It explained that the speech limit applies only to referring to the agreement as evidence of a settlement in this matter, and only in official proceedings.
| Case Number | 1:26-cv-20609-KMW |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Presiding Judge | Hon. Kathleen M. Williams |
| Reopening Request | Undecided as of the Eleventh Circuit's September 29 order |
| Fee Proceedings | Ongoing |
Does the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit Revive the Settlement?
No. The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit has not revived the settlement, because the September 29, 2026 stay denial leaves the bar on citing the agreement in place during the appeal.
The stay ruling is interim, so a later merits decision could change the outcome. The Eleventh Circuit order does not address the Anti-Weaponization Fund or the May 19 audit release. Those issues sit in separate cases, described in the related-cases section below.
The appeal puts no money at stake for the plaintiffs, because the agreement paid them no damages. The only dollar exposure is attorneys' fees, which Judge Williams has not set. She declined monetary sanctions in July and invited fee memoranda instead.
The fund's future is also disputed outside court. A Justice Department spokesperson told Scripps News the fund was dead and that any claimant may pursue remedies in court. Former Justice Department official Ed Martin said on a podcast the day before the ruling that nobody had given up on reimbursing people the administration says were targeted.
Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit Updates
The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit updates below run from the July 13, 2026 sanctions order through the Eleventh Circuit's September 29 stay denial. Each entry names the court, the filing, and the actor. New filings are added as they are confirmed.
Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Eleventh Circuit Denies a Stay of the Sanctions
Judges Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Newsom denied the appellants' stay motion in Eleventh Circuit No. 26-12692. They doubted appellate jurisdiction over the Brito and Epstein sanctions. They found no strong showing of success on the collusion findings or the First Amendment challenge to the speech limit.
Eleventh Circuit Dockets the Government's Cross Appeal
The Eleventh Circuit docketed the IRS and Treasury appeal from the July 13 order. A Justia listing shows the cross appeal as No. 26-13258. A docket entry reported by court-tracking sites says the clerk rescinded the appellants' September 28 brief deadline and promised a new schedule.
Justice Department Files Its Own Notice of Appeal
The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from Judge Williams's order on behalf of the IRS and Treasury. Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter signed it, according to Democracy Docket.
Appellants File a Stay Motion in the Eleventh Circuit
President Trump, his sons, the Trump Organization, Alejandro Brito, and Daniel Epstein filed a time sensitive motion to stay the sanctions order and the fee proceeding. DLA Piper and JH Legal appear as their counsel on the filing.
Trump Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys Notice an Appeal
The Trump plaintiffs, Brito, and Epstein appealed Judge Williams's July 13 order and asked the district court for an expedited stay. The district court later denied that stay at D.E. 130.
Former Federal Judges Move for Attorneys' Fees
The 35 former federal judges who sought to reopen the Southern District of Florida case filed a fee motion. The Eleventh Circuit later declined to extend its review to the fee proceedings.
Judge Williams Issues the Sanctions Order Now on Appeal
Judge Kathleen Williams found the Trump IRS lawsuit collusive and filed in bad faith. She imposed non-monetary Rule 11 sanctions: a speech limit, a Florida Bar referral for Brito, and a one-year pro hac vice denial for Epstein. She did not order monetary sanctions.
What Did the Appellants Fail to Show in the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit?
The appellants in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit failed to show that the district court erred, according to the Eleventh Circuit's stay order. The panel wrote that they offered no evidence explaining their litigation conduct or proving the case was not collusive. In the district court, they filed no affidavits or declarations on adversity, collusion, or improper purpose. They also did not request an evidentiary hearing.
Findings of collusion and bad faith are factual, so the Eleventh Circuit reviews them for clear error. Under that standard, a finding stands if it is plausible in light of the full record.
| Party | Role in the Appeal |
|---|---|
| Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization LLC | Plaintiffs-appellants asking to undo the sanctions |
| Alejandro Brito and Daniel Epstein | Interested parties-appellants who were personally sanctioned |
| Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of the Treasury | Defendants named in the caption, who filed their own notice of appeal |
| Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges | Interested parties-appellees who asked the district court to reopen the case |
| John Koskinen and others | Movants whose request to intervene the panel carried with the case |
The government did not argue against the sanctions in the district court, where no defense attorney appeared. The Eleventh Circuit order describes that fact as one the district court found unsurprising given the President's control over the defendants.
How Does the Trump IRS Appeal Lawsuit Compare to the Original Trump IRS Lawsuit?
The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit differs from the original Trump IRS lawsuit because it reviews sanctions instead of damages claims. The original case sought $10 billion over leaked tax returns and ended in a voluntary dismissal. A separate Virginia case challenges the fund that the agreement created.
| Matter | Court and Case Number | What It Decides | Where It Stands |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trump v. IRS (original case) | S.D. Fla., No. 1:26-cv-20609 | Whether the IRS and Treasury owed damages over the leaked tax returns | Dismissed by the plaintiffs, with reopening and fee questions still pending |
| Trump IRS appeal | 11th Cir., No. 26-12692 | Whether Judge Williams's sanctions order should be reversed | Stay denied September 29, 2026, merits pending |
| Floyd v. Department of Justice | E.D. Va., No. 1:26-cv-01399 | Whether the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the immunity order are lawful | Preliminary injunction against the fund entered June 12, 2026, and the court ordered the government on September 4 to reveal who devised the fund |
The Eleventh Circuit stay panel did not rule on the fund's legality, so the Virginia case proceeds on its own track.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit about?
The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit is Eleventh Circuit Appeal No. 26-12692, which challenges Judge Kathleen Williams's July 13, 2026 sanctions order in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service. The order found the original suit collusive and sanctioned two Trump attorneys.
Is the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit a class action?
No. The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit is not a class action, because it concerns sanctions against named plaintiffs and two named lawyers. The underlying case also never pleaded a class.
Did the Eleventh Circuit rule on the merits of the Trump IRS appeal?
No. The Eleventh Circuit did not rule on the merits of the Trump IRS appeal. On September 29, 2026 it denied only a stay, and the panel said its decision does not bind the merits panel.
Why did the Eleventh Circuit deny the stay in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit?
The Eleventh Circuit denied the stay in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit because the appellants did not make a strong showing of success. It doubted appellate jurisdiction over the lawyer sanctions. It also found no clear error in the collusion findings, since the appellants offered no evidence.
Which judges decided the stay in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit?
Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, and Kevin Newsom decided the stay in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit. The September 29, 2026 order was issued by the court, and media reports noted no dissent.
Who is appealing in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit?
President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, the Trump Organization, and attorneys Alejandro Brito and Daniel Epstein are appealing in the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit. The IRS and Treasury filed their own notice of appeal on September 11, 2026.
Does the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit bring back the settlement?
No. The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit does not bring back the settlement. The September 29 stay denial leaves in place the bar on citing the agreement as evidence of a settlement in official proceedings, while the appeal continues.
Is the Trump IRS appeal lawsuit the same as the Trump IRS lawsuit?
No. The Trump IRS appeal lawsuit is the Eleventh Circuit review of sanctions, while the Trump IRS lawsuit is the Southern District of Florida case that sought $10 billion over leaked tax returns. Both stem from No. 1:26-cv-20609.