Former Oklahoma Attorney General Robert Henry, the former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, is among 35 retired federal judges asking a court to reopen a case that led to a controversial $1.776 billion settlement between the Trump administration and the Internal Revenue Service.
The retired judges contend a federal court was not fully informed about the settlement before the lawsuit was dismissed and therefore was denied an opportunity to scrutinize whether the underlying claims justified such an agreement, according to reporting by The Oklahoman.
Henry is one of Oklahoma’s most prominent legal figures. He served as Oklahoma attorney general from 1987 to 1991 before Republican President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Democratic President Bill Clinton later elevated Henry to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where he eventually served as chief judge. After retiring from the federal bench in 2010, he served as president of Oklahoma City University.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS after a contractor leaked his tax returns. Trump withdrew the lawsuit on May 18, after which the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement creating a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The following day, the department announced it would release federal claims against Trump, his family and his businesses and prevent future financial audits, according to The Oklahoman.
Henry told the newspaper the judges’ concerns center on ensuring courts fulfill their role as an independent check on government power.
“When you file a lawsuit against yourself, there’s no one there to protect the taxpayers,” Henry told The Oklahoman. “All we are asking is for the court to be given all the facts. We want the court to know about the settlement, how it was negotiated, if it was negotiated (at all).”
The retired judges argue the settlement was improper because the court never completed its review of whether Trump’s lawsuit presented a legitimate legal controversy before it was dismissed. They contend the government agreed to the settlement without the judicial scrutiny normally required before taxpayer funds are committed to resolving litigation.
In court filings, the judges alleged the settlement was “a product of collusion” and amounted to a “fraud on the Court.” They argued that dismissing the case before the court could determine whether a valid controversy existed prevented judicial review of an agreement involving nearly $1.8 billion in federal funds.
The other retired judges who joined the filing were appointed by presidents of both parties, according to The Oklahoman.
The settlement has drawn criticism from legal observers and prompted additional litigation. Two U.S. Capitol Police officers who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack have filed a separate lawsuit seeking to block creation of the fund.
Whether the court ultimately reopens the case remains uncertain. But Henry’s participation places a former Oklahoma attorney general and retired federal appellate chief judge at the center of a growing legal fight over judicial oversight, executive authority and the use of taxpayer dollars.
This story includes reporting first published by The Oklahoman.
