A federal magistrate judge has ordered the Department of Justice to provide initial disclosures for claims not tied to the administrative record in a lawsuit challenging a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” and continued a hearing on the plaintiffs’ broader motion to compel discovery. (Floyd v. Department of Justice, No. 26-cv-1399, order issued 8/28/2026)
Court orders disclosures, continues hearing
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia directed the government to provide initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) for all claims that are not based on review of the administrative record, and set a deadline of September 4. That rule generally requires parties to identify, without awaiting a request, individuals likely to have discoverable information and documents supporting their claims or defenses.
The lawsuit includes claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, which are generally reviewed on an agency’s administrative record, and constitutional claims that are not.
The order also continued a hearing on the plaintiffs’ broader motion to compel until Friday. Judge Davis directed the parties to meet and confer in good faith by September 2 and to file a joint notice by September 3 stating whether the conference had resolved all outstanding issues. If it has, the court said, the September 4 hearing will be terminated; if not, the notice must identify the remaining issues, each side’s position, and whether the parties want oral argument.
Discovery in the case began while the government’s motion to dismiss was still pending, an unusual sequence the government has highlighted.
Judge Davis also reminded the parties that, under the court’s local rules, it may deny any motion solely because it concludes they have not met and conferred in good faith.
Parties dispute scope of discovery
The order followed a motion the plaintiffs filed August 21 seeking to compel the government to provide initial disclosures and to respond to document requests and interrogatories served July 7. In a reply filed August 27, the plaintiffs argued the government had “shrouded this entire case in secrecy.”
In its August 26 opposition, the Justice Department argued it was not required to provide initial disclosures because the case is “an action for review on an administrative record,” which is exempt under Rule 26. The government said it had produced an administrative record exceeding 700 pages and had answered all but one interrogatory, contending that the fund was never created and that the order establishing it had been rescinded.
The government also argued that several requests improperly sought information about a separate case, Trump v. IRS, No. 26-cv-20609, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and that settlement communications from that case were entitled to heightened protection from discovery. The plaintiffs countered that the presiding district judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, had twice allowed discovery to proceed and that their constitutional claims are not confined to the administrative record.
They said discovery about the Trump v. IRS settlement is relevant because, they contend, the government has identified that settlement as the event that created the fund. The parties also dispute whether the government waived objections by serving them late and the terms of an unfinished protective order.
Lawsuit challenges fund’s legality, DOJ moves to dismiss
The underlying lawsuit was filed May 22, 2026, by a group of individuals and organizations, including former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause. The complaint names as defendants the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, several officials, and the fund itself, and alleges that the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
According to the complaint, the fund was established as part of a settlement in the Trump v. IRS case to provide redress for “Lawfare and Weaponization” by “Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents.” The plaintiffs allege that this structure creates a viewpoint-discriminatory program that unconstitutionally excludes individuals and entities that say they were targeted for political reasons by the Trump-Vance administration.
Floyd, for example, alleges that he was fired in 2025 in retaliation for supervising January 6 prosecutions.
On August 21, the same day the plaintiffs filed their motion to compel, the government filed an amended motion to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion argues the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams ruled in July that the Trump v. IRS suit was “collusive” and barred the parties from relying on the settlement; the administration has said it will not proceed with the fund.
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
