DOJ Tax Alum, Now D.C. District Judge, Blocks Construction on President Trump's Ballroom (3/21/26)

D.C. District Judge Richard J. Leon, court bio here, a DOJ Tax Alum, is in the news for today having blocked the construction of President Trump’s beloved White House Ballroom. See e.g., ABC News Report here. The opinion is here; the order is here. The opinion starts with the following introduction:

The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner! President Trump ("the President") claims that Congress has given him authority in existing statutes to construct his East Wing ballroom project and to do it with private funds. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States ("National Trust"), claims the President has no such authority under existing statutes and that a preliminary injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have. As such, I must therefore GRANT the National Trust's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.

The court bio linked above states Judge Leon’s Tax Division and other DOJ service as follows:

Earlier in his career, Judge Leon served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of positions including Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Environment Division, Senior Trial Attorney in the Criminal Section of the Tax Division, and as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. 

Update on Effect of the DOJ Tax Reorganization on Appellate Section (3/18/26)

The Civil Division’s Tax Litigation Branch filed a motion, here, for a 30-day Extension to file petition for rehearing en banc in brief in Sirius Solutions, LLLP v. Commissioner (5^th Cir. No. 24-60240). The substantive issue in the case is not relevant to this posting on the DOJ Tax Division Alumni Blog, but I provide links at the end of the this blog. In part here relevant, the Motion says (pp. 2-3):

   2. I am an Assistant Director of the Appellate Section of the Civil Division’s Tax Litigation Branch at the United States Department of Justice, n1 and I am the supervisory attorney assigned to this case. Paul Allulis, the lead attorney responsible for briefing and arguing this case, left the Department of Justice and withdrew from this case in late May 2025. Samuel Jones was reassigned as the lead attorney, but Mr. Jones is currently out of the office for an extended period on parental leave. The Appellate Section has lost over 40% of its attorneys since February 2025, due to retirement, resignation, or temporary transfer. Therefore, at this time, it is not possible for me to assign this case to yet another attorney, who would need to devote time to learning the issues  [*3] in this case. Accordingly, I am now handling this matter myself, in addition to my managerial duties.

    n1 As part of a planned Department of Justice restructuring, the Tax Division, which previously handled this case, ceased to exist effective November 30, 2025. At that time the civil litigation functions of the Tax Division, including the Appellate Section handling this case, were transferred to the Civil Division, and into a new Tax Litigation Branch.

   3. Filing of a petition for rehearing en banc may proceed only if authorized by the Solicitor General, after consideration of the views of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and of the Chief Counsel at the Internal Revenue Service. See 28 C.F.R. Part O, Subpart D, § 0.20(b). This process requires collecting recommendations from agencies interested in the proceeding and of attorneys assigned to the case at the Department of Justice, and their supervisors, which recommendations the Office of the Solicitor General considers in deciding whether to authorize an appeal. This process requires review of the record and consideration of the legal issues by attorneys who were not involved in the trial court proceedings and who are, at the same time, handling other active litigation and managerial duties. Although the process of obtaining authorization is underway, the Department is still engaged in determining whether to pursue further review in this matter. If a petition for rehearing en banc is authorized, it will be necessary to take into account the Solicitor General’s views in drafting the petition for rehearing.

 The Motion states (p. 6 ¶ 6) that the Appellant opposes the Motion.

 Documents relevant to the underlying issue are

1. The Panel Opinion in Sirius Solutions is here (CA5) and here (GS).

2. My blog on the Panel Opinion is Fifth Circuit Knows a Limited Partner When Reads It (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 1/24/26; 1/20/26), here.

Death of Judge E. Grady Jolly 3/16/26 (3/17/26; 3/20/26)

E. Grady Jolly, longtime Fifth Circuit Judge, died on 3/16/26. See the obituary here. The obit says in part relevant to his Tax Division service:

Judge Jolly began his legal career as a trial attorney for the National Labor Relations Board in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, from 1962 to 1964. He then served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi from 1964 to 1967, and subsequently as a lawyer for the Tax Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1967 to 1969. In 1969, he returned to Mississippi, entering private practice in Jackson, where he honed his skills for thirteen years before his federal judicial appointment. 

Added 3/20/26 9:00am:

Ilya Shapiro, Remembering a Judge’s Judge: Judge E. Grady Jolly made the law, not ideology, his North Star (City Journal 3/18/26), here.

Opportunity to Comment on Proposed DOJ Rule Titled "Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys" (3/11/26)

A DOJ Tax Alumnus forwarded me the information below about an opportunity for Alumni to make comments to the proposed  DOJ rule titled "Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys." The proposed rule on the Federal Register is here. 

According to the Justice Connection podcast, the effect of the rule is to "block State Bar Ethics Investigations" of DOJ attorneys.  See the Justice Connection podcast titled “AG Bondi's Attempt to Block State Bar Ethics Investigations: A Discussion with Stacey Young & Glenn Kirschner,” here.

Comments are due before the April 6 deadline.

Comments can be made here.

 The Federal Register notice of the rule indicates that, as of the time I am writing this blog on 3/11/26 at 8:00pm, 27,588 comments have been received.) There is a link on the page (upper right) to view posted comments; that link is here.