Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in great support of H.R. 6506, the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act.

Before I address this bill, I would like to take a moment to discuss the President's $1.8 billion slush fund, which was created by using money from American taxpayers, a fund based on a meritless lawsuit that will be used to pay his friends and allies. Yet, the Republican House remains silent.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an amicus brief filed on Monday by me, my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, and the Litigation Task Force, the link which can be found at:

Https://litigationtaskforce.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ litigationandresponse.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/54- 1.pdf. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA President Donald J. Trump, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., Defendants. No. 26-cv-20609-WILLIAMS/LETT

Motion For Leave To File Brief As Amici Curiae By 93 Members of the United States House of Representatives INTRODUCTION

Ninety-three Members of the United States House of Representatives respectfully submit this motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of neither party to assist this Court in scrutinizing the unprecedented circumstances that have given rise to the Court's ``concerns about whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.'' ECF No. 43. President Trump's action against the federal government he currently leads is a collusive lawsuit that undermines the separation of powers, frustrates Congress' lawmaking prerogative, and--unless rightfully dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction--could siphon billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family, and his allies. As Members of Congress, the proposed amici have a direct and substantial interest in ensuring that Article III's case or controversy requirement is enforced and that acts of Congress are faithfully executed by the Executive Branch. The proposed amici respectfully submit this brief, attached as Exhibit A, to present critical arguments regarding this Court's jurisdiction and, among other things, the constitutional and statutory limits on the Department of Justice's (``DOJ's'') settlement authority that have not been--and will not be-- advanced by any party in the litigation. INTEREST OF MOVANTS

Movants are 93 Members of the United States House of Representatives. Movants are interested in this case because they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They also have a strong interest in ensuring that acts of Congress are faithfully executed by the Executive Branch.

The President is attempting to undermine the Constitution by bringing this collusive suit against the federal government contrary to the requirement that federal courts may only hear ``Cases'' or ``Controversies.'' U.S. Const. art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Congress has enacted laws governing the specific circumstances under which individuals and entities may sue the United States for unauthorized disclosure of their tax return information. The DOJ is entrusted with defending the United States against claims under these laws and ensuring that the statutory requirements are met before money is paid pursuant to the statutes. Here, however, the DOJ has colluded with President Trump and his allies and, in so doing, abdicated these responsibilities. The parties' actions, therefore, have frustrated Congress' purpose in enacting these laws.

Moreover, Congress has a strong interest in ensuring that the Executive Branch properly guards the public fisc. That includes complying with the Constitution's commands that ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 1, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,'' id. art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 7, and forbidding the President from ``receiv[ing] within [his term] any other Emolument from the United States'' than compensation approved by Congress, id art. II, Sec. I, cl. 7. Should this lawsuit achieve Plaintiffs' desired ends, it would result in the improper and unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family, and his allies. Having taken oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, the movants cannot stand by and let the Constitution's provisions and prohibitions, including the express bar on Presidential profiteering, go ignored. DISCUSSION

District courts possess the inherent authority to allow amici to assist in their proceedings. In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1249 n.34 (11th Cir. 2006); Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart, 764 F. Supp. 1495, 1500-01 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Because an amicus ``participates only for the benefit of the court, it is solely within the discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.'' Id. at 1501 (quotation omitted).

This Court should grant this motion for leave to file an amicus brief by 93 Members of the House of Representatives because President Trump's presence on both sides of the litigation, and his own blunt statements about his ability to control the case, show that Plaintiffs and Defendants are not adversaries. As such, the DOJ has failed to raise numerous, clearly meritorious arguments for dismissal that it has raised in other cases involving essentially identical facts. The Court should allow the proposed amici to participate in the litigation in order to equip the Court with these and other critical considerations that will assist it in conducting its analysis, including arguments regarding this Court's Article III jurisdiction and the constitutional and statutory limits on the DOJ's settlement authority.

Courts routinely grant leave to file an amicus brief where the amicus `` `contributes to the court's understanding of the matter in question' by proffering timely and useful information.'' United States v. Santiago-Ruiz, No. 17-60022- Crim-BLOOM, 2017 WL 11454398, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2017) (quoting Conservancy of Sw. Fla. v U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 2:10-cv-106-FtM-SPC, 2010 WL 3603276. at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2010)). Courts also grant amicus status where ``[p]articipation as amicus curiae will alert the court to the legal contentions of concerned bystanders . . . .'' Resort Timeshare, 764 F. Supp. at 1500-01 (citation omitted). Here, the proposed amici bring the unique perspective of current Members of Congress in a lawsuit that raises serious questions about the separation of powers. the Origination Clause, the Appropriations Clause, and the Emoluments Clause. These issues are of critical importance to the proposed amici, given their legislative and oversight roles, their oaths, and their duties as constitutional stewards of the federal treasury.

The brief by the proposed amici timely, as the Court has indicated that it is currently analyzing whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. ECF No. 43. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, movants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion for leave to file their proposed amicus brief. LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION

Counsel for movants have made reasonable efforts to confer with all parties regarding their positions with respect to this motion but have been unable to do so. There have been public reports that the parties are preparing to announce a collusive settlement as early as today, May 18, 2026. Thus, to ensure the Court has the benefit of amici's briefing before such a settlement is announced, amici is filing this motion and accompanying brief now.

Nevertheless, counsel for movants still sought the consent of the parties. Movants' counsel emailed counsel for Plaintiffs on Sunday, May 17, 2026, around 9:45 p.m. ET. Plaintiffs' counsel has not yet responded to the request for Plaintiffs' position on this motion. And although the government has not yet entered an appearance in this matter, counsel for movants emailed Matthew Feeley, Chief of the Civil Division for the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida on Sunday, May 17, 2026, around 9:45 p.m. ET. Mr. Feeley has not yet responded to the request for the government's position on this motion.

Dated: May 18, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Matthew J. Platkin, Angela Cai, Ravi Ramanathan, Aaron E. Haier, Conor Bradley,

Platkin LLP, 413 Washington Ave., Unit 174, Belleville. NJ 07109. Norman L. Eisen, David W. Ogden, Stephen A. Jonas, Democracy Defenders Action, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. SE #15180, Washington, D.C. 20003. Rivero Mestre LLP, 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000, Miami, Florida 33134. Andres Rivero, Florida Bar No. 613819, Daniela Tenjido-Eljaiek, Florida Bar No. 1031531. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of May 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which automatically serves all counsel of record for the parties who have appeared.

Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 5.2(a), I further certify that I caused the foregoing to be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the following governmental entities who are defendants in this action or act as an entity which accepts service on behalf of the defendants in this action: (1) Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20224; (2) United States Office of the Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20530; and (3) Southern District of Florida United States Attorney's Office, 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami, FL 33131. Service to these entities was made via mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C). Andres Rivero.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act will strengthen taxpayers' rights when the IRS uses a levy to collect unpaid taxes by making technical fixes to the Tax Court's jurisdiction.

In the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, language was added to give taxpayers due process and an opportunity for review of IRS collection cases involving levies. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case has highlighted the need to revisit this section.

In this recent case, a taxpayer paid estimated taxes that were applied to her ex-husband's account instead of her own account. The IRS then proceeded to levy her property for the unpaid taxes.

She challenged this action in court, but while the case was pending, the IRS offset her later-year refund against the unpaid taxes until it eventually reached zero. At that point, the IRS sought to dismiss the case and won.

The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the current statute limits the Tax Court's jurisdiction to only reviewing whether a levy should proceed. Since there was no longer a levy, she lost her ability to argue about the underlying taxes. Worse, she also lost her later-year refunds because of the statute of limitations being expired.

At every step of the process, Mr. Speaker, the system failed this taxpayer. Our bill will fix this problem.

First, while disputing a levied case in the Tax Court, our bill tolls the statute of limitations for filing refund claims.

Second, while the case is pending, the IRS is prohibited from using later-year refunds to offset the taxpayer's liability without the individual's consent.

Finally, this bill will give the Tax Court jurisdiction over the levy and the underlying tax liability. The bill also would allow the Tax Court to retain jurisdiction even if the IRS abandons the levy.

I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), for his steadfast leadership in this area. I thank him for his generous support, and I thank both of our staff for their hard work on this bill.

We must work together to ensure that the IRS does not abuse its levy authority and that taxpayer rights are clearly defined and protected. I think it is very important that we make commonsense reforms like this, and I am happy that they are bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my amazing, good friend, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Jason Smith, for his leadership, and Ranking Member Neal, who has always shown his support for the American people. It is an honor to sit on a committee that can come together with bipartisan legislation like this.

H.R. 6506 is a commonsense bill that will help taxpayers and the courts. The bill passed 41-0 in the Ways and Means Committee, showing bipartisan support for protecting the due process rights of taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and pass this bill into law, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source