President Donald Trump faced a complete legal setback on Wednesday as a federal appeals court dismantled his extensive lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and numerous other defendants. The court upheld the dismissal of all claims and imposed sanctions totaling nearly $1 million against Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba.
In a detailed 36-page opinion issued on November 26, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit critically evaluated Trump’s legal arguments. Chief Judge William Pryor, appointed by George W. Bush, alongside judges appointed by Joe Biden and Trump, delivered the unanimous decision.
The lawsuit started in March 2022 when Trump filed a 193-page amended complaint citing federal racketeering statutes against Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, former FBI Director James Comey, and others. Trump claimed a conspiracy aimed at damaging his 2016 presidential campaign by fabricating links between him and Russia, seeking accountability for what he described as efforts to undermine his candidacy and presidency.
A Florida district court dismissed the case in September 2022, labeling it as lacking legal substance and as characteristic of shotgun pleading—a disorganized filing that fails to adequately notify opposing parties of specific claims. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, who oversaw the initial case, concluded that Trump did not present any viable legal claim and described the lawsuit as frivolous from the start.
The district court’s dismissal marked only the beginning of Trump’s legal challenges in this matter. In January 2023, Judge Middlebrooks issued a 46-page sanctions order imposing $937,989.39 in fees and costs against Trump and Habba. “Many of Trump’s and Habba’s legal arguments were indeed frivolous,” wrote the three-judge panel. The court determined that the lawsuit was filed in bad faith for political purposes rather than legitimate legal grievances, stating that no reasonable attorney would pursue such claims.
Trump appealed both the dismissal and sanctions to the 11th Circuit, but his legal team opted not to contest 11 of the original 16 claims on appeal. The appellate court reviewed the remaining five claims, finding them untimely and without merit. During oral arguments on November 19, 2025, in Birmingham, Alabama, Chief Judge Pryor questioned Trump’s appellate attorney on the pleadings’ adequacy, noting the complaint’s structural and legal deficiencies.
The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Trump’s complaint contained legally impossible claims, such as a malicious prosecution claim absent a prosecution and a trade secret claim without a trade secret. The panel agreed that seven counts in the amended complaint failed to allege an actual cause of action, exemplifying what the district court termed the peak of shotgun pleading.
Racketeering lawsuits under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act require plaintiffs to establish an organized enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal activity. The courts found Trump’s lawsuit failed to satisfy these basic requirements: it did not plausibly identify a coordinated enterprise, valid criminal predicate acts, specific, quantifiable financial harm, or a filing within the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
Trump’s legal team attempted to strengthen their case by citing Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the origins of the Russia investigation. However, the appeals court dismissed this effort, noting that the investigation’s existence was already evident when the amended complaint was filed. The court found no grounds to reverse the district court’s decisions based on Durham’s work.
The sanctions decision represented a significant rebuke of Trump’s litigation approach. The district court found Trump’s attorneys knowingly advanced false factual allegations and frivolous legal theories, citing other lawsuits Trump had filed as evidence of a broader pattern. Judge Middlebrooks specifically referenced Trump’s withdrawn lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James as an example of what he described as vexatious litigation designed to advance political narratives rather than address legitimate legal harms.
The appeals court’s decision leaves Trump and Habba jointly and severally liable for the full amount of sanctions. The ruling clarifies that both the president and his attorney are responsible for the litigation’s frivolous nature, and that Habba’s law firm is also liable for the penalty amount.
One defendant received a different outcome. While the appeals court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice for most defendants—preventing Trump from refiling claims against them—the court found the district court lacked proper jurisdiction over Orbis Business Intelligence, the private intelligence firm owned by former British spy Christopher Steele. The dismissal against that defendant was affirmed without prejudice, allowing for potential future litigation.
The comprehensive defeat concludes another chapter in Trump’s extensive litigation history involving political opponents and perceived adversaries. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that federal courts should not serve as platforms for political grievances lacking a legitimate legal basis, irrespective of who brings such claims.
