The Case We Call Trump v. Trump

In the legal dispute we call President Trump v. President Trump, our inclination is to side with President Trump. The case, to wade into the particulars, was brought by a private citizen, one Donald J. Trump, against the Internal Revenue Service — an executive branch agency under the control of the president. This is posing a dilemma for the federal district judge assigned to the case, Kathleen Williams, who suggests that the case lacks for adversity.That’s legal talk for requiring parties in a dispute to have opposing claims — and stakes in the outcome. The rule, which stems from the Cases and Controversies Clause of the Constitution, is a check on the power of the federal courts. The requirement, Justice Neil Gorsuch asserted in Wednesday’s high court ruling in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, helps distinguish matters that are “fit for judicial resolution from questions of public policy.”Disputes that don’t meet the threshold, Justice Gorsuch added, warrant being “reserved to the elected branches” or “left to the debating hall.” Judge Williams nodded to this concern when she wrote of the “limited jurisdiction” of federal courts. While Mr. Trump says “he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity,” she contended that “he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction.” As a result, Judge Williams said she deems it “unclear” in the dispute between Mr. Trump and the IRS “whether the parties are sufficiently adverse to each other.” She asked Mr. Trump and the Justice Department — which is representing the IRS in the dispute — to put forward arguments as to “whether a case and controversy exists in this matter so as to establish the Court’s jurisdiction.” This poses what Mr. Trump calls a “very interesting” dilemma.Judge Williams on Wednesday acted of her own accord — sua sponte, in court-speak — to invite some leading legal sages to illuminate the question. These include a former federal judge, John Gleeson, appointed by President Clinton, and a solicitor general under President Obama, Donald Verilli. Judge Williams has asked these “friends of the court,” as she calls them in an order, to weigh in on the question by May 21. Justice Department officials, the Times reports, “have struggled with how and whether they could defend the case.” This is in part because, per the Times, “doing so would necessitate that they contradict the president on a legal question.” This is a conundrum courtesy of the Constitution, which in Article II vests in the president alone the federal government’s executive powers. These include defending America in legal disputes.To be sure, the case reflects a tension between the president and the interests of the taxpayers. Mr. Trump and his sons are demanding more than $10 billion in compensation for the IRS leaking the president’s tax information. He denies that he is seeking to gain from the outcome, mooting giving the “money to charity.” One can well understand the impulse animating Mr. Trump’s effort to achieve accountability against the IRS for the lapses leading to the leak.That worthy goal, though, suggests that there could be merit in settling the dispute out of court. Judge Williams alluded to the prospect of settlement talks in a recent court order, noting that the parties in the dispute, despite their potential lack of adversity, “are engaging in discussions to resolve this matter.” That offers a prospect of a win for the taxpayers in a dispute that Mr. Trump, as a matter of logic and law, cannot lose.

The Case We Call Trump v. Trump

More from the New York Sun

‘It Better Be Soon!’: Trump Renews Call for ABC To Fire Kimmel Over ‘Expectant Widow’ Joke

A Survey of Salvador Dalí in His Surrealist Prime

Alleged Links to Terrorist Entity Cast New Shadow Over Iran’s World Cup Participation

More from the New York Sun

‘It Better Be Soon!’: Trump Renews Call for ABC To Fire Kimmel Over ‘Expectant Widow’ Joke

A Survey of Salvador Dalí in His Surrealist Prime

Alleged Links to Terrorist Entity Cast New Shadow Over Iran’s World Cup Participation

Trump’s Talk of Pulling Troops From Germany Leaves Asian Allies Wondering If They’re Next

IDF Chief Says Israel Has ‘No Restrictions’ in Targeting Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon as Clashes Intensify

‘Condoms and Drugs’: Israeli Navy Intercepts Gaza-Bound Flotilla

A Sword of Damocles Is Lifted From Pro-Life Clinics

Putin, Fearing Ukrainian Drones, Drops Tanks and Missiles From Red Square ‘Victory’ Parade