David Super predicts that if Congress changes to Democratic control, the Trump administration will quickly disburse money from the "anti-weaponization" fund during the lame-duck session to make the ac...

David Super predicts that if Democrats gain control of Congress, any legislation to stop the "anti-weaponization" fund would be vetoed by President Trump.

David Super believes it is unlikely the Supreme Court will grant legal standing to the police officers suing over the "anti-weaponization" fund due to the Court's trend of narrowing standing criteria.

David Super predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to hear a taxpayer lawsuit challenging the 'government weaponization' fund on Appropriations Clause grounds.

David Super claims the "government weaponization" settlement is ineligible for payment from the Judgment Fund because the settlement amount of $1.776 billion is stated in a press release but is not sp...

Constitutional law professor David Super asserts that the lawsuit between President Trump and the Justice Department is a "textbook example of collusive litigation" because the same entity effectively...

David Super argues that the $1.8 billion "government weaponization" fund usurps Congress's "power of the purse" by creating a new program without congressional authorization or appropriation.

The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts can only be used to resolve genuinely adverse controversies and cannot be invoked for collusive cases.

According to David Super, the committee overseeing the $1.776 billion "government weaponization" fund is a "100% slush fund" with no safeguards, as all five members are appointed by the president with...

David Super asserts the "government weaponization" settlement fund is unlawful because Article 1 of the Constitution and the Anti-Deficiency Act require a congressional appropriation for any money dra...

The Trump administration's use of the Judgment Fund for the settlement is legally invalid because the fund is restricted to settlements from non-collusive litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has established that federal courts only have jurisdiction to resolve genuinely adverse controversies and cannot be used for collusive cases.

Payments from the 'government weaponization' fund are considered felonies under the Anti-Deficiency Act because they are made without a valid congressional appropriation.

The 'government weaponization' fund is for the specific amount of $1.776 billion, which is believed to be a symbolic reference to the year 1776.

The President possesses the authority to fire and replace any member of the committee overseeing the $1.776 billion 'government weaponization' fund at will, making the committee completely subservient...

The 'government weaponization' fund is not legally eligible for payment from the Judgment Fund because the settlement papers do not specify the $1.776 billion amount mentioned in press releases.

The Anti-Deficiency Act makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, to distribute federal funds without a valid congressional appropriation.

The lawsuit between President Trump and the Internal Revenue Service is a 'textbook example of collusive litigation' because the plaintiff and defendant are both controlled by Donald Trump.

Rank-and-file officials at the U.S. Treasury or Department of Justice who help administer the 'government weaponization' fund face personal criminal liability for violating the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The creation of the 'government weaponization' fund is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's 'power of the purse' because it establishes a new program without congressional authorization or app...