President Donald Trump encountered a significant legal setback when a federal appeals court dismissed his extensive lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and numerous others. The court upheld the dismissal of all claims and imposed sanctions nearly totaling $1 million against Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba.
In a detailed 36-page opinion released on November 26, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit criticized Trump’s legal arguments. The unanimous decision was authored by Chief Judge William Pryor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, with the participation of judges appointed by former Presidents Joe Biden and Trump.
The legal proceedings began in March 2022 when Trump filed a 193-page amended complaint alleging federal racketeering violations against Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, former FBI Director James Comey, and others. Trump claimed a conspiracy aimed to harm his 2016 presidential campaign by creating false connections between him and Russia.
A Florida district court dismissed the case in September 2022, citing the lack of legal substance and describing it as a disorganized “shotgun pleading” that failed to inform opposing parties of specific claims. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, who presided over the case, noted that Trump did not present any viable legal claim and labeled the lawsuit frivolous from the start.
In January 2023, Judge Middlebrooks issued a 46-page sanctions order requiring Trump and Habba to pay $937,989.39 in fees and costs. The judge found that many of their legal arguments were frivolous and that the lawsuit was filed in bad faith, using the courts for political purposes rather than legitimate grievances.
Trump appealed both the dismissal and the sanctions to the 11th Circuit, but his legal team did not challenge 11 of the original 16 claims on appeal. The appellate court reviewed the remaining five claims, deeming them untimely and meritless. During oral arguments on November 19, 2025, in Birmingham, Alabama, Chief Judge Pryor questioned Trump’s attorney about the complaint’s deficiencies.
The appeals court supported the lower court’s conclusion that Trump’s complaint contained legally impossible claims, such as a malicious prosecution claim without a prosecution. The panel concurred that several counts failed to allege any actual cause of action, exemplifying the “shotgun pleading” issue.
Racketeering lawsuits under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act require proof of an organized enterprise engaging in criminal activity. The courts found Trump’s suit did not meet these criteria, lacking evidence of a coordinated enterprise, valid criminal acts, quantifiable financial harm, and it was filed beyond the four-year statute of limitations.
Trump’s legal team attempted to strengthen their case with Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the origins of the Russia investigation. However, the appeals court dismissed this as the investigation’s existence was known when the complaint was filed, providing no basis to overturn the district court’s decisions.
The sanctions decision was a major rebuke of Trump’s litigation approach. The district court found Trump’s attorneys advanced false factual allegations and frivolous legal theories, citing other lawsuits filed by Trump as evidence of a broader pattern of vexatious litigation.
The appeals court’s decision holds Trump and Habba jointly and severally liable for the sanctions amount, indicating both bear responsibility for the lawsuit’s frivolous nature. Habba’s law firm is also liable for the penalty.
One defendant received a different outcome. While the appeals court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, it found the district court lacked jurisdiction over Orbis Business Intelligence, allowing for potential future litigation.
This comprehensive defeat closes another chapter in Trump’s extensive litigation history involving political adversaries. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that federal courts should not address political grievances lacking a legitimate legal foundation.
In related news, an appellate court ruled Monday, December 1, that Habba is serving illegally as New Jersey’s chief federal prosecutor, dealing a setback to President Trump as he seeks to keep his chosen nominees in charge of U.S. attorney offices in Democratic-leaning states.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed with a lower court’s ruling that removed Habba, a combative Trump ally who formerly acted as the president’s personal defense attorney.