President Donald Trump filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday asking the justices to revive his long-running lawsuit against his 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the Democratic National Committee and dozens of other defendants. The suit, filed in 2022 in federal court in Florida after Trump left office, alleged racketeering and conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood, claiming Clinton and her allies conspired to discredit his campaign by promoting what he called a "false narrative" tying it to Russia. Lower courts threw the case out and sanctioned Trump and his lead attorney, Alina Habba, for nearly $1 million in fees and costs.

The appeal is a striking escalation because of how dismissively lower courts treated the case. U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the Southern District of Florida likened the lawsuit to a "two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him" and wrote, "No reasonable lawyer would have filed it." He imposed the sanctions after finding the suit was intended "to dishonestly advance a political narrative," relied on "knowingly false" factual allegations, and reflected a "continuing pattern of misuse of the courts." The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld both the dismissal and the sanctions in 2025, stating that many of Trump's and Habba's legal arguments "were indeed frivolous."

Trump's core legal problem is timing: the district court dismissed the racketeering claims in part because they were filed too late. In the appeal reviewed by CNN, his attorneys argue he decided to wait until he was out of office because any private civil suit "would consume substantial time and energy," raising the question of whether a president's responsibilities warrant holding off on legal deadlines while in office. The lawyers wrote that Supreme Court review "is necessary to protect the Presidency, and to prevent judicial disagreement from becoming a license to punish its advocates," and they accused lower courts of "a deeply troubling trend" of using sanctions to punish the president for legitimate legal positions.

Beyond one lawsuit, the filing tests how far the courts will go in policing litigation by a sitting president and whether his legal deadlines can be suspended by executive duty. Trump has a history of suing adversaries, and the case lands amid other legal fights involving his allies and foes: his Justice Department last year indicted Comey for false statements and obstruction, though a federal judge dismissed that indictment after finding the handpicked prosecutor was unlawfully appointed. Reuters notes the Mueller report found Russia interfered in the 2016 election "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government — findings Trump dismisses as a "hoax."

CNN reports the Supreme Court will likely decide later this year whether to hear the case, meaning the justices must weigh whether a dispute already branded frivolous by two lower courts deserves a place on their docket weeks before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. If it takes the case, it could set a precedent on whether presidential responsibilities justify deferring private lawsuits — a question his lawyers say carries "a profound impact on the presidency, and the nation as a whole."

The Supreme Court filing came the same week Trump suffered another courtroom defeat on election matters. According to The Guardian, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled Friday that the Justice Department's policy of collecting states' unredacted voter rolls to check against a federal immigration database is unlawful, writing that it "represents the federal government's attempt to decide who gets to vote" even though Congress left that authority with the states. The Guardian reports about 18 states complied with the department's May request before the ruling. Meanwhile, AP reporting carried by WTOP finds 69% of Americans say the Iran war has not been worth fighting, with only 28% approving of Trump's handling of it — a headwind shadowing the Nov. 3 midterms.