A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Department of Justice from taking any further action to create or disburse money from its so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund as one of three lawsuits challenging it proceeds.
Judge Leonie Brinkema said she would hold a hearing on June 12 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on whether to maintain the injunction against the DOJ's $1.8 billion fund.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche earlier this month said he was creating that fund as part of a settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit by President Donald Trump against the Internal Revenue Service for the leak of his tax records by an IRS employee. Blanche is Trump's former criminal defense lawyer.
Hours after Brinkema's order a judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging the fund in Washington, D.C., federal court scheduled a hearing for Wednesday at the request by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to issue a temporary restraining order that would block the DOJ's fund from operating as that suit plays out.
The fund is meant to compensate people who allege they were the victims of prosecutorial overreach by the DOJ under the Biden administration, which they and Trump have called "lawfare."
Critics have called it a "slush fund" for Trump allies, including people who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who on Thursday had asked Brinkema for the injunction and expedited briefing on blocking the fund, is Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who said he was fired last year for his work prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants.
The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a university professor who said he was baselessly arrested in 2025 while protesting an immigration raid in California, and the city of New Haven, which the Trump administration sued for acting as a so-called sanctuary city for immigrants.
Brinkema, in her order, enjoined the DOJ from "taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes 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."
Brinkema, in a pointed footnote in her order, wrote, "It is important that the status quo be maintained until plaintiffs' pending Motion has been resolved."
Brinkema said that was "especially" important because the plaintiffs had alleged that DOJ's lawyers were "'unable ... to provide assurances of how long [the] status quo would last' and declined plaintiffs' request that the government commit to not transferring money to the Fund or processing or paying claims until at least June 19 to allow for less compressed briefing in this case."
A number of Trump allies have already said they want compensation from the fund.
"The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement.
"We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare," the spokesperson said.
Skye Perryman, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit and the CEO of the group Democracy Forward, called Brinkema's order "a really important win."
"The president has no authority to create the fund, but there's also a range of constitutional problems with this fund, beyond the lack of authority and separation of powers," Perryman said during an interview with "Chris Jansing Reports" at MS NOW.
"The fund itself, the way it's been described, it clearly violates the First Amendment," he said. "It seeks to penalize, or it seeks to prioritize some people as opposed to other people. It is a violation of the equal protection clause [of the U.S. Constitution]. It is operating in a very arbitrary fashion and contrary to law, which is another federal law that they have violated under the Administrative Procedure Act."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in a post Friday on X said, "Of all Trump's corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved."
"This ruling is an important win — but the fight is far from over," Schumer wrote. "Democrats will keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day.
— CNBC's Kevin Breuninger contributed to this article.
Correction: The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a university professor who said he was baselessly arrested in 2025 while protesting an immigration raid in California. An earlier version misstated the circumstances of Caravello's arrest.