A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
Two police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 have filed a lawsuit to stop President Trump from giving $1.8 billion to victims of, quote, "weaponization and lawfare." The officers don't want that money going to rioters convicted in connection with the attack. The nearly $2 billion fund was created to settle a lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS over the public release of his tax returns. Joining us to discuss that fund is Rupa Bhattacharyya. She managed victim compensation funds for the Department of Justice, including the September 11 victims' fund. She's currently legal director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University.
So, Rupa, how does the size of this fund compare to the ones you administered?
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA: So the size of this fund is quite large. It is smaller than the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, which compensated tens of thousands of people. But it is - in terms of a litigation settlement fund, it's probably larger than any I've ever seen, particularly when you consider that the only plaintiffs in this lawsuit, who are technically the ones who are supposed to be receiving the compensation, are just a few individuals.
MARTÍNEZ: OK. So how does that complicate actually - say the money goes to people in a case like this, in the size of a fund like this, is it just as simple as apply for the fund, and then you get the money, or how much more complicated is it?
BHATTACHARYYA: So it - you know, it's really quite extraordinary that taxpayer money in this amount would be set aside for a fund where there have been no criteria and no guidelines established. Not even - not by the department, certainly, which is setting up the fund, but also not by Congress. Every other fund that I was involved in involved money that had been appropriated by Congress for that particular purpose, and where Congress, by statute, had established both the criteria for who was eligible and once someone was determined eligible, the criteria for how much compensation they would receive, depending on the type of harm that was suffered. None of those sorts of guidelines are evident on the face of the memo that acting Attorney General Blanche has released.
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah. Normally - and you mentioned Congress. Normally, they would appoint an oversight committee. In this case, the DOJ is appointing the oversight board. That's legal, but is it unusual?
BHATTACHARYYA: Well, so it's not actually clear to me that it's legal, but...
MARTÍNEZ: OK.
BHATTACHARYYA: ...It's certainly unusual. When you think about the legality of the fund, I think you actually have to think about two different things. The first is whether or not the Treasury Department actually has the authority to settle the litigation that was filed against it and to do so with money out of the Judgment Fund. That, I think, might be legal, although the way in which it has been done here is quite contrary to the purposes for which that fund was created.
But the second question is once that settlement money comes into the United States, can it be diverted into this other fund that Congress did not create? That, I think, very well may be illegal. Ordinarily, any funds that are received by the United States have to be placed into the general treasury so that Congress can then reappropriate them under various provisions of law and because constitutionally, Congress has the power of the purse.
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah. Two officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, they're fighting this in court. Do you think they have a case?
BHATTACHARYYA: I think there are a lot of legal claims that they can make. The question is going to be whether or not a court finds that they have sufficient standing, meaning that they themselves have suffered a sufficient injury to actually bring the case, which is somewhat ironic because the court that was actually reviewing the Trump v. IRS case, one of the concerns that it had was that it lacked jurisdiction because there was not a sufficient case or controversy between the two parties because they're both on the same side, right? President Trump is on both sides of the V in the underlying litigation, and standing is another component of that case or controversy requirement.
MARTÍNEZ: Rupa Bhattacharyya at Georgetown University. Thank you very much for your insights.
BHATTACHARYYA: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
