Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to bring back a lawsuit that two federal courts have already rejected. He filed it in March 2022 against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, the law firm Perkins Coie and others, alleging a coordinated scheme to undermine his candidacy and presidency with fabricated accusations of Russian collusion.
U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in Florida dismissed the case. He found, among other things, that Trump waited too long to bring his claims and that many of the statements he challenged were "plainly protected by the First Amendment." The judge then ordered Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed on both counts. Chief Judge William Pryor wrote that the claims were "untimely and otherwise meritless," and the full court declined to take another look, according to SCOTUSblog. Clinton's response is due 30 days after the petition is docketed, and none had been filed when SCOTUSblog reported on the petition.
What the petition asks
Trump's petition, docketed as No. 26-518, puts two questions to the justices. First, should the deadline for his claims have been paused because of his unique role and responsibilities as president? Second, can a court sanction a president and his lawyers for making what the petition calls a substantial, unresolved argument that the deadline should have been extended? Before filing, his lawyers had sought more time from the Court.
The first question is about tolling, the legal rule that can stop the clock on a statute of limitations in special circumstances. The lower courts said those circumstances did not apply here.
Why the sanctions matter beyond this case
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires lawyers to certify that a filing has factual support and is backed by existing law or a good faith argument for changing it. Judges can also punish bad faith litigation under their own inherent authority. Sanctions of this size against a former president and his counsel are rare.
On Episode 94, Daniel Rosenberg, Michael Dye and Lloyd Golburgh take both sides seriously. The same episode opens with the federal investigation into Ilhan Omar. If the argument for more time was genuinely open, should a lawyer be punished for making it? And if courts let every novel argument slide, what stops a well funded litigant from using lawsuits as a weapon?
The Supreme Court agrees to hear only a small fraction of the petitions it receives, so the most likely outcome is that the justices decline. If they take it, the tolling question could reach well beyond Trump.
The panel asked viewers where they stand. Should the Court revive the suit, or were the sanctions justified?
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
