Subject: Re: Trump must destroy the judiciary
Seems to me it falls into the category of cases that judges often make the defendants pay for the attorney's fees because their behavior was so outrageous as to force a suit that never should have been necessary. Not a "slap", but that was the only term I could think of (hence the "akin to"). I'm guessing there are no rules about that? Don't judges censure (or even fine) attorneys when their case is so bad it never should have been a thing (e.g. bypassing due process, withholding funds they had no right to withhold, trying to defend singling out lawyers and firms that oppose them, and so much more)?

I think you're conflating the rules that govern when a lawsuit is frivolous with what happens when the actions that caused the lawsuit are egregious.

Judges can impose sanctions, including requiring payment for attorneys fees, when a party has done something frivolous in the lawsuit. So if the lawsuit is completely frivolous or abusive, there sometimes is a remedy (note: not sure whether that ever applies to the federal government as a party). But that's not what's happening here. The lawsuit is completely meritorious. It's the actions that the government took outside of the lawsuit that are reprehensible.

Whether a plaintiff can recover money damages and/or attorneys fees based on the government's actions, rather than litigation, depends on the substantive law governing the case. Generally, plaintiffs are usually only asking for injunctive relief - the government is going to do something they think is unlawful, they ask the court to stop the government from doing it (or to undo it). As a general matter, the federal government can only be liable for money damages if Congress has created a money remedy at law. Also as a general matter, the U.S. is not a "loser pays" system, so government would only be liable for attorneys fees if there's a specific statute that shifts fees to the losing party.