Govind Tekale
If you are tracking whether the Trump administration’s controversial compensation fund is truly gone, a federal judge has said the legal dispute remains active.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said at a September 18 hearing that she was not persuaded by government assurances that the Anti-Weaponization Fund had been abandoned. The Justice Department announced the fund on May 18 with $1.776 billion from the federal Judgment Fund. The program was described as a process for claims alleging government “weaponization and lawfare.” The lawsuit includes former career federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, Professor Jonathan Caravello, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation and Common Cause. An August order from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the May 18 order establishing the fund was rescinded.
For taxpayers and watchdog groups, the court’s decision to keep the case active allows the plaintiffs to continue challenging the fund’s creation and the settlement structure behind it. The court has not ruled that future payouts will occur through another channel. It is examining whether the government’s rescission fully resolves the issues raised in the lawsuit.
The Voluntary Cessation Doctrine and Judicial Oversight
The voluntary-cessation doctrine addresses cases in which a defendant stops the challenged conduct after litigation begins. A court may still keep a case alive if the defendant has not shown that the conduct cannot resume or that the dispute has otherwise been resolved. That is the legal context behind Brinkema’s refusal to treat the government’s assurances as enough to end the case at the September 18 hearing.
The original DOJ announcement said the fund would be financed through the Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation used for certain settlements and judgments involving the federal government. That fact describes the proposed funding mechanism. It does not establish that a replacement programme has been created or that payouts are currently being made.
The judge also ordered the administration to produce relevant records. Politico reported that the government had 30 days to turn over those records, while depositions and answers to written questions could wait until after a written ruling.
Is the Anti-Weaponization Fund lawsuit still active? Yes. Brinkema indicated on September 18 that the case should proceed even though the administration said the fund had been abandoned. The Justice Department’s August rescission order is part of the dispute. The court has not yet issued the final written ruling on the issues argued at that hearing.
The next significant development is the court’s written ruling and the production of records. Those steps will clarify how far the challenge proceeds.
For related legal coverage, see Federal Administrative Leave 9.5 Billion GAO Report Deferred Resignation Program and Supreme Court Justice Narasimha EV Charging Remark Not Order 2026.
