Judge rejects Trump’s attempt to use Florida court as a beard

Beard.

You know the word. The most common meaning is facial hair. There was another definition: Slang for a member of the opposite sex used as a cover to hide someone’s homosexuality. Fortunately, this latter definition has fallen into disuse as sexual orientation is no longer something that most people feel they need to hide.

An example of a beard was Judy Garland for Lionel Bart, who wrote Oliver! She did it to protect him, who was truly her friend. Another beard was Barbara Walters, and she was trying to protect Roy Cohn, who happens to be Donald Trump‘s hero.

We see the imprint of Cohn on Trump in Trump’s refusal to give in, never apologize, never give in, and never to admit to losing.

And now Trump has taken a beard, or at least tried to. The beard in question is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This time, though, the bearding wasn’t voluntary, and Judge Kathleen M. Williams turned him down flat in her July 13, 2026 Order:

The Parties used the existence of federal litigation as a means of conferring legitimacy upon a course of action that they were unwilling to subject to judicial review. At 52.

This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse. At 50.

Trump lost: No beard, no settlement, no Anti-Weaponization Fund (the proceeds going in part to convicted felons who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021), no release from back taxes or audits of past tax returns. He tried to emulate Cohn and keeps failing. Keeps losing.

One last loss would be appropriate. Harkening back to Bill Clinton, he was impeached (and not convicted) because he lied under oath in front of a federal judge while being deposed. Once. Although Clinton was ultimately held in contempt of court and forced to resign from the Arkansas and Supreme Court bars, the finding of contempt was far off in the distance. The House did not wait for the court to act before it impeached Clinton.

Compared with Clinton, what Trump did in this case (that was neither a case or a controversy) was many times worse: Turning the Treasury Department and the IRS into Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd, respectively, to Trump’s Edgar Bergen. The goal was to cloak the theft of government funds and a unilateral grant of immunity with a coating of judicial process, a pixie dust of implicit approval. That was both unlawful and a dagger aimed by Trump at the heart of an independent and co-equal branch of government.

Turning again to Judge Williams, at 55:

This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.

The court also imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel to include attorneys’ fees incurred by court-appointed amici. At 52 & n. 67. That includes Trump.

Unlike in Clinton at the time of the impeachment, the court has spoken in the Trump matter. There is nothing to keep the House from impeaching and the Senate from convicting Trump. If you supported impeaching Clinton, only rank hypocrisy would prevent you from impeaching Trump for committing an offense against the judiciary of a scale that dwarfs Clinton’s one lie under oath.

An impeached Trump could thereby achieve an even closer bond with his idol Roy Cohn. A few weeks before he died, Cohn was disbarred. He could never walk into a court again as a lawyer. Congress has the opportunity to see to it that Trump can never again walk into the White House as the president.

A heritage of losers: Cohn and Trump. Make it happen!

Editorial Advisory Board Member Debra G. Schubert did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

Gary E. Bair

Jill P. Carter

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Liebmann

George Nilson

Steven I. Platt

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.