President Donald Trump suffered a complete legal defeat on Wednesday as a federal appeals court demolished his lengthy lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and dozens of other defendants, upholding both the dismissal of all claims and sanctions totaling nearly $1 million against Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba.
In a 36-page opinion issued Wednesday, November 26, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit delivered a withering assessment of Trump’s legal arguments. The unanimous decision came from Chief Judge William Pryor, appointed by George W. Bush, along with judges appointed by Joe Biden and Trump himself.
The lawsuit originated in March 2022, when Trump filed a sprawling 193-page amended complaint invoking federal racketeering statutes against Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, former FBI Director James Comey, and numerous other defendants. Trump alleged a conspiracy to damage his 2016 presidential campaign by fabricating connections between him and Russia. The complaint sought to hold the defendants accountable for what Trump characterized as a coordinated effort to undermine his candidacy and presidency.
A Florida district court rejected the case in September 2022, finding it lacked legal substance and constituted what judges call a shotgun pleading—a disorganized filing that fails to properly notify opposing parties of specific claims. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, who presided over the initial case, determined that Trump had not adequately stated any viable legal claim and characterized the lawsuit as frivolous from its inception.
The district court’s dismissal proved to be only the beginning of Trump’s legal troubles in the 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,” the three-judge panel wrote. The judge found they had filed the lawsuit in bad faith and used the courts for political purposes rather than legitimate legal grievances. The court determined that no reasonable attorney would have pursued such claims and that Trump had engaged in a pattern of misusing the judicial system.
Trump appealed both the dismissal and the sanctions to the 11th Circuit, but his legal team chose not to challenge 11 of the original 16 claims on appeal. The appellate court examined the five remaining claims and found them untimely and otherwise meritless. During oral arguments held on November 19, 2025, in Birmingham, Alabama, Chief Judge Pryor pressed Trump’s appellate attorney on the adequacy of the pleadings, pointedly observing the obvious deficiencies in the complaint’s structure and legal theories.
The appeals court endorsed the lower court’s finding that Trump’s complaint included legally impossible claims, such as a malicious prosecution claim without a prosecution and a trade secret claim without a trade secret. The panel agreed that seven counts in the amended complaint failed to allege any actual cause of action, representing what the district court had termed the high-water mark of shotgun pleading.
Racketeering lawsuits under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act require plaintiffs to demonstrate an organized enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal activity. The courts found Trump’s lawsuit failed to meet these fundamental requirements. It did not plausibly identify a coordinated enterprise, did not allege valid criminal predicate acts, did not demonstrate specific quantifiable financial harm, and was filed outside the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
Trump’s legal team attempted to bolster 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 existence of an investigation was already evident when the amended complaint was filed. The court found no reason to reverse the district court’s decisions based on Durham’s work.
The sanctions decision represented a significant rebuke of Trump’s litigation strategy. The district court had found that Trump’s attorneys knowingly advanced false factual allegations and frivolous legal theories, pointing to other lawsuits Trump had filed as evidence of a broader pattern. Judge Middlebrooks specifically cited Trump’s withdrawn lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James as an example of what he characterized 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 the sanctions. The ruling makes clear that both the president and his attorney bear responsibility for the frivolous nature of the litigation. Habba’s law firm is also included in the liability for the penalty amount.
One defendant received a different outcome than the others. While the appeals court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice for most defendants—meaning Trump cannot refile claims against them—the court found the district court lacked proper jurisdiction over Orbis Business Intelligence, the private intelligence company owned by former British spy Christopher Steele. The dismissal against that defendant was affirmed but without prejudice, theoretically allowing for potential future litigation.
The comprehensive defeat closes another chapter in Trump’s extensive history of litigation involving his political opponents and perceived adversaries. The court’s decision firmly upholds the principle that federal courts should not be used as vehicles for political grievances lacking a legitimate legal foundation, regardless of who brings such claims.
