President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to reopen a lawsuit a federal judge dismissed four years ago. Lower courts called the case legally insufficient and, in parts, “frivolous.” The suit accuses Hillary Clinton and other political adversaries of orchestrating an effort to sabotage Trump’s 2016 campaign by linking it to Russia. Those courts also ordered Trump and his former attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions.
In a filing reported by Reuters, Trump’s attorneys argue that the lower courts went too far. They wrote that the ruling reflects “a deeply troubling trend of federal courts using sanctions and disciplinary threats to punish the president and his lawyers for legitimate legal positions that those courts (erroneously) reject.” They added: “The court’s intervention is necessary to protect the presidency, and to prevent judicial disagreement from becoming a license to punish its advocates.”
How the Case Got Here
Trump filed the lawsuit in 2022. It named Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, the Democratic National Committee and others, accusing them of conspiring to undermine his presidential bid by bolstering allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia.
U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed the case in September 2022. He found the claims legally insufficient, and some had come too late. He later sanctioned Trump and Habba, calling the complaint a “two-hundred-page political manifesto.” Middlebrooks also accused Trump, who wasn’t in office when he brought the challenge, of using the courts to advance political grievances.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and sanctions in 2025. The three-judge panel agreed unanimously. It included Andrew Brasher, a Trump appointee, and found many of the lawsuit’s arguments “frivolous.” That detail matters: the ruling didn’t divide along partisan lines.
A Docket Still Catching Up
As of late Friday night, the case appeared on the Supreme Court’s online docket, but the page didn’t yet show the reported filing. The latest available document was a late-August application seeking more time to file the appeal. Justice Clarence Thomas approved the request, extending the deadline to Friday, Oct. 9.
Words From the President
The appeal follows recent remarks from Trump about people named in his lawsuit. Discussing the prospect of another impeachment if Democrats regained control of Congress, he told reporters he’d held back out of respect for the presidency. “I could have done very bad things to Hillary Clinton. I could have done very, very bad things to Joe Biden,” Trump said. The article notes he made similar comments about former Presidents Obama and Biden.
The filing’s framing deserves comparison with the record. Trump’s lawyers cast sanctions as an attack on advocacy. At two levels, courts concluded the suit advanced political grievance rather than a sound legal claim; the appellate panel included one of Trump’s own appointees.
Why This Matters: Sanctions are one of the few tools courts have to discourage litigation filed for political rather than legal purposes. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it will decide whether a president and his lawyers can face penalties for claims judges found baseless. The answer will shape how freely powerful figures can use federal courts against opponents, and who pays when they do. Earlier rulings called the suit a political manifesto, not a legitimate claim, and a unanimous appellate panel agreed. An appeal that casts accountability as persecution tests a basic principle: the same procedural rules should bind everyone, whatever office they hold or once held. Trump’s recent comments about what he “could have done” to rivals add context courts and the public will likely weigh.