• Appeals court upholds dismissal of racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and James Comey

• Panel affirms nearly $1 million in sanctions for filing “frivolous” political claims¹

• Judges agree original complaint was a “political manifesto” rather than valid legal action

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — A federal appeals court has dealt another legal blow to President Donald Trump, upholding the dismissal of his sprawling civil lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and the Democratic National Committee. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled Wednesday that the lawsuit, which alleged a vast conspiracy to cripple Trump’s 2016 campaign, was without merit and legally baseless.

A “Classic Shotgun Pleading”

The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s finding that the lawsuit was “frivolous” and “untimely.” Writing for the panel, Chief Judge William Pryor described the complaint as a “classic shotgun pleading” that failed to articulate a coherent legal theory.

“We agree with the district court that Trump’s complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading,” Pryor wrote. The judges noted that the filing incorporated hundreds of vague paragraphs into succeeding counts, making it virtually impossible for defendants to formulate a proper response.³ The panel, which included appointees from both Democratic and Republican administrations, found no error in the district court’s refusal to allow further amendments to the complaint.

Costly Sanctions Upheld

In addition to dismissing the case, the appellate court upheld nearly $1 million in sanctions previously imposed on Trump and his lead attorney, Alina Habba. The fines, totaling approximately $938,000, were originally levied by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who characterized the lawsuit as a tool for political fundraising rather than a legitimate grievance.

The appeals court agreed that the lawsuit exhibited a “pattern of misusing the courts” to attack political rivals. While the panel declined to impose additional sanctions for the appeal itself, they affirmed that the original penalties were justified given the bad faith nature of the litigation. The sanctions are intended to cover the legal fees incurred by the 31 defendants named in the suit.

The “False Narrative” Allegations

Trump’s lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, sought $72 million in damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The complaint alleged that Clinton, the DNC, and firms like Perkins Coie conspired to weave a “false narrative” that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia during the 2016 election.

The suit targeted a wide array of defendants, including Fusion GPS and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Trump’s legal team argued that these actors maliciously fabricated evidence to trigger a federal investigation. However, the courts have consistently ruled that these grievances belong in the political arena, not the judiciary.⁴ Judge Middlebrooks had previously skewered the filing as a “political manifesto” that detailed personal grievances rather than actionable legal claims.

Immunity and Future Battles

The ruling comes as the President continues to navigate a complex web of legal challenges. While the Supreme Court recently granted broad immunity protections for official presidential acts, the 11th Circuit’s decision underscores that such protections do not extend to private civil suits or conduct undertaken as a political candidate.

Trump’s legal team has vowed to continue fighting what they term a “Democrat-led witch hunt.” However, with the dismissal now affirmed by the appellate court, the legal avenues for reviving these specific RICO claims appear to be exhausted. The decision serves as a stern warning to litigants about the consequences of using the federal court system to settle political scores.

How might this ruling impact the willingness of political figures to use the court system as a venue for campaign-related grievances?