Judge Places Temp. Pause on Disbursement of DOJ

Anyone hoping to obtain restitution through the newly-formed Anti-Weaponization Fund that the Trump administration’s Justice Department (DOJ) announced just over a week in the past can have to wait at least quickly for it to go into impact, after a federal decide put in place a TRO (momentary restraining order) on Friday morning:

🚨 A federal decide quickly halts operation of the DOJ’s Anti-Weaponization Fund pending additional briefing, ordering the federal government not to switch or disburse funds before a June 12 listening to. pic.twitter.com/trsAOnXJah

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) May 29, 2026

 U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, appointed to the federal bench in Northern VA by Pres. Bill Clinton, said the court would need to maintain a listening to first.

Federal decide quickly blocks Justice Department’s $1.778 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund.’ The order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema states that the DOJ is prevented “from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization… pic.twitter.com/6RfMZcLx9T

— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) May 29, 2026

Federal judge temporarily blocks Justice Department’s $1.778 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund.’ The order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema states that the DOJ is prevented “from taking any additional motion pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order on Friday comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs that includes a former career prosecutor who alleges he was fired for his handling of the Jan. 6 cases. The plaintiffs are suing to block payout from the fund. 

The order, which lists the Justice Department as a defendant, states that the DOJ is blocked “from taking any additional motion pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which incorporates the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.” 

The decide also set a listening to for June 12 in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. 

Some of the plaintiffs in the case, according to the Fox News story linked above, embody:

• Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, an Alexandria resident who prosecuted Capitol riot circumstances in Washington, D.C., before he was fired last 12 months by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.
• California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of an assault charge. He was accused of throwing a tear gasoline canister at federal brokers during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, hashish farm.

Also named as plaintiffs are the federal government watchdog Common Cause, the town of New Haven, Connecticut, and the National Abortion Federation, an affiliation of abortion suppliers.

New Haven claims the Trump administration officers have focused it and other municipalities that they understand to be “sanctuary” cities…

Readers would possibly recall that this might have presumably been a moot level, had Congress handed the reconciliation package deal containing the fund back on May. twenty first. Leader John Thune selected to give up on passing it, and instead gave the Senate an early trip before Memorial Day weekend.

A Justice Department spokesperson, talking to Fox News Digital Friday about the ruling, said they’re “extremely confident” the fund is Consitutionally sound, and would overcome any “policy preferences” of biases judges:

“The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements. We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare.”

My colleague Bob Hoge wrote about the provisions of the settlement fund – which was made in the wake of Pres. Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS – getting confirmed on May 18th.

California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom swiftly vowed to have his state confiscate 100% of any disbursed funds to Golden State residents by taxation. But Newsom wasn’t the only state-level govt making noise over this, with other blue state governors signaling they might also implement a tax. Among them was NY Democrat Kathy Hochul, who determined to get in a foolish tiff with Trump this week over his fandom of the NBA’s Knicks.

READ MORE: Updated: Trump Drops $10B IRS Lawsuit As Democrats Freak Out Over $1.7B Settlement Fund

Outrage: Gavin Newsom Vows to Confiscate 100 Percent From California MAGA Victims of Biden Lawfare

Per a Politico piece revealed Friday, Hochul told media on Thursday: “I have no problem with there being consequences for people who accept that money.”

As I’m not a lawyer of any persuasion, let’s hear to the take by Law Professor Jonathan Turley on the matter; he thinks it’s “likely lawful”:

While I used to be vital of how the Administration created the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” it’s seemingly lawful. That can’t be said about Gavin Newsom’s announced 100% tax on anybody receiving such funds. https://t.co/XAnaGFZ4Py Such a confiscatory tax can be ripe for problem.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 28, 2026

You can read the full order right here.

This is a developing story. PinkState will present updates as warranted.

Editor’s Note: Do you take pleasure in PinkState’s conservative reporting that takes on the unconventional left and woke media? Support our work so that we will continue to carry you the reality.

Join PinkState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to obtain 60% off your membership.