Donald Trump once joked about the glaring contradiction at the center of his extraordinary lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.

“I’m suing myself,” the president reportedly said.

On Monday, a federal judge used those words against him.

In a blistering ruling, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams concluded that Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit was never a legitimate dispute between opposing parties. Instead, she found that the case had been used to manufacture judicial credibility for an agreement benefiting Trump, his family, their businesses and political allies—while potentially placing taxpayers on the hook for nearly $1.8 billion.

Williams voided the settlement, prohibited the parties from presenting the arrangement as a legitimate court-approved resolution and referred lawyers involved in the matter to disciplinary authorities.

Her conclusion was devastatingly direct:

“There was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.”

The ruling represented far more than an ordinary courtroom defeat.

It accused a sitting president and senior Justice Department officials of trying to use the federal judiciary to legitimize an agreement reached between Trump’s personal lawyers and agencies under Trump’s own executive control.

Williams described that arrangement as an improper exercise in self-dealing.

“This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute,” she wrote.

Instead, the judge said, it was an attempt to give legitimacy to an agreement granting immunity to Trump-affiliated people and entities while setting aside billions in taxpayer money for grievances not clearly recognized in law.

Trump filed the lawsuit in January alongside his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization. They sought $10 billion over the unauthorized disclosure of their tax information during Trump’s first term.

The leak itself was real and serious. Former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn was sentenced to prison after admitting that he unlawfully disclosed confidential tax information belonging to Trump and thousands of other wealthy Americans.

But Williams found that the lawsuit Trump filed after returning to office presented a constitutional problem that could not be ignored.

Trump was suing the IRS and Treasury Department—agencies operating under his own administration.

For the 109 days the case remained open, no government attorney entered an appearance or filed a substantive response defending the agencies, according to the ruling.

“It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties,” Williams wrote.

Federal courts can resolve only genuine “cases or controversies.” That requirement normally means the parties must have opposing legal interests rather than cooperating toward a predetermined result.

Williams concluded that this lawsuit never met that standard.

The suspicion deepened when the Justice Department announced two sweeping agreements in May.

One insulated Trump, his sons and their companies from existing federal tax examinations and claims involving previously filed returns. The protection did not necessarily cover future tax years, but it offered an extraordinary shield against ongoing scrutiny.

The second agreement created a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended to compensate people who claimed they had been unfairly targeted by the government.

The money would have come from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent pool of taxpayer money used to pay government settlements and court judgments. The Justice Department said the fund would operate until late 2028 and distribute relief under the attorney general’s direction.

Williams was particularly skeptical of the strangely precise $1.776 billion figure.

In a pointed footnote, she suggested that the number sounded more like political branding—an obvious reference to 1776—than a thoughtful calculation of actual damages.

The fund ultimately collapsed after bipartisan criticism from lawmakers, ethics specialists and former government officials. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration would not proceed with it.

But Blanche maintained that the separate tax protections granted to Trump and his companies would remain.

Monday’s decision disrupted that position.

Reuters reported that Williams voided the broader settlement, including the sweeping tax protections. She also referred a Trump attorney and senior Justice Department officials involved in approving the arrangement to state bar authorities for possible ethical review.

The court imposed direct consequences on attorney Daniel Epstein, including a one-year prohibition on practicing in the Southern District of Florida, according to Axios. Williams also barred Trump and the administration from describing the case’s resolution as a “settlement,” rejecting the suggestion that it emerged from genuine adversarial negotiations.

The disciplinary referrals do not themselves establish that any attorney committed professional misconduct.

State bar authorities will determine whether ethical rules were violated and whether further sanctions are appropriate.

Still, the referrals dramatically raise the stakes for the lawyers who constructed the deal.

Williams’ ruling also places fresh scrutiny on Blanche just before a scheduled Senate confirmation hearing. The judge highlighted his extraordinary position inside the arrangement: as acting attorney general, Blanche oversaw the Justice Department representing the agencies Trump had sued while also serving an administration controlled by the plaintiff.

The judge’s opinion portrayed the entire episode as a threat to the integrity of the courts.

Judges do not exist merely to stamp government agreements with legal approval. They require an authentic dispute, genuine advocacy from both sides and a lawful remedy grounded in facts.

Williams found none of those things here.

Trump’s own remark ultimately captured the problem better than any complicated legal argument.

He was suing himself.

His personal lawyers were negotiating with his own Justice Department.

The agencies supposedly opposing him offered no resistance.

The resulting agreement protected Trump’s family from existing tax scrutiny and attempted to create a politically branded fund worth nearly $1.8 billion.

Williams refused to allow the court to be used as scenery for that arrangement.

Trump sought judicial legitimacy.

Instead, he received a ruling declaring that the supposed lawsuit had never truly existed—and that the lawyers who created it may now have to answer for what they did.