A federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn nearly $1 million in sanctions imposed on him and attorney Alina Habba, concluding that the lawsuit they filed against Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and several other high-profile figures never should have been brought in the first place. The ruling represents yet another legal setback for Trump as he continues pursuing long-running grievances through the courts.
The decision came from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Trump and Habba had engaged in “sanctionable conduct” when they filed the sprawling 2022 lawsuit accusing Clinton and others of orchestrating a far-reaching conspiracy to damage Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. authored the ruling, bluntly declaring that many of the legal theories Trump advanced were “indeed frivolous.”
A Panel From Across the Political Spectrum
The panel’s composition underscored the breadth of judicial skepticism toward Trump’s claims. Pryor, appointed by President George W. Bush, was joined by Trump-appointed Judge Andrew Brasher and Biden-appointed Judge Embry Kidd. Despite their diverse political backgrounds, all three judges agreed the lawsuit lacked merit and that the sanctions imposed by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks were justified.
The appeals court noted that Middlebrooks — who serves in the Southern District of Florida and was appointed by President Bill Clinton — properly analyzed not only the weaknesses of the lawsuit itself but also a larger “pattern” in Trump’s use of the courts. The judges said Trump’s repeated attempts to pursue broad, conspiratorial legal claims against political rivals weighed heavily in favor of sanctioning him and Habba.
The Lawsuit That Sparked the Penalty
Trump’s 2022 lawsuit was sweeping in its accusations. It claimed that Clinton, Comey, the Democratic National Committee, and numerous other individuals conspired to fabricate allegations of connections between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. According to the complaint, this alleged conspiracy served as the foundation for the federal investigations into Trump, including the widely publicized probe overseen by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The lawsuit framed these events as a coordinated racketeering scheme designed to cripple Trump’s political prospects. But from the outset, legal experts panned the claims as overly broad, unsupported by evidence, and doomed to fail. The district court quickly dismissed the case, and Judge Middlebrooks later ordered Trump and Habba to pay nearly $1 million to cover the legal fees incurred by Clinton, the DNC, and other defendants who had been forced to respond to what he described as a legally baseless attack.
Trump appealed both the dismissal and the sanctions, but Friday’s decision by the 11th Circuit leaves the penalty in place.
A Second Setback in Days
The ruling marks the second major defeat for the president in the 11th Circuit in the span of a single week. Days earlier, a separate panel — which notably included two Trump appointees — rejected his attempt to revive a lawsuit against CNN. That suit accused the network of defamation for using the phrase “Big Lie” to refer to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The court was unpersuaded by Trump’s argument and refused to give the case new life.
Combined, the two rulings signal a deepening skepticism from the federal judiciary toward Trump’s ongoing attempts to leverage the courts against critics, political rivals, and media outlets.
Judges Call Out Misuse of the Legal System
Chief Judge Pryor’s opinion spans 36 pages and leaves little doubt about the panel’s view of Trump’s strategy. At multiple points, Pryor described the 2022 lawsuit not as a legitimate legal effort, but as an improper attempt to wield the federal courts as a political weapon.
The opinion emphasized that courts must not be used to inflict burdensome litigation on political opponents without evidence or a plausible legal basis. Pryor argued that allowing the lawsuit to proceed — or allowing Trump to evade sanctions — would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging public officials or candidates to file similar actions to harass or intimidate rivals.
He also noted that, during oral arguments, the judges had pressed Trump’s attorney for clear explanations of the claims and legal theories underpinning the 2022 lawsuit. Those explanations were, in the court’s view, insufficient and unconvincing.
Who Pays the Penalty — and Why
The nearly $1 million penalty stems from fees racked up by Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and several other defendants who were forced to respond to the litigation. Judge Middlebrooks concluded that Trump and Habba jointly bore responsibility for filing a lawsuit that lacked even a basic legal foundation. As a result, he ordered both of them to pay.
In its decision, the 11th Circuit found that Middlebrooks acted within his authority and followed proper procedures when evaluating whether sanctions were warranted. The appeals court said Middlebrooks carefully weighed the history of Trump’s prior litigation tactics, including other lawsuits deemed meritless or politically motivated.
No Comment From the White House or Trump’s Team
As news of the ruling broke, representatives for the White House, Trump’s legal team, and Habba all declined to comment. The president has previously described legal actions targeting him as part of a long-running campaign by political rivals, the media, and “corrupt” institutions to undermine him.
Habba, who served as Trump’s private attorney at the time she filed the Russia-related lawsuit, later became a public spokesperson for his legal team. Earlier this year, Trump appointed her to serve as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, a move that raised eyebrows in legal circles.
Habba’s Controversial Appointment and Legal Battles
Trump’s decision to make Habba the interim federal prosecutor for New Jersey in March sparked intense scrutiny. Her appointment was set to expire in July, but the administration used an unusual procedural approach to keep her in the role. A federal judge ruled in August that the maneuver was unlawful, though the Justice Department has since appealed that ruling.
The controversy surrounding Habba’s role in the government adds another layer of complexity to the sanctions case. Critics have argued that an attorney facing nearly $1 million in penalties for filing frivolous litigation should not serve, even temporarily, as a chief federal prosecutor.
Judicial Frustration on Full Display
Pryor’s opinion echoed the tone of the district court’s earlier orders, expressing frustration at what judges see as attempts to overload the courts with unfounded claims disguised as major political scandals.
The panel cited Trump’s pattern of rehashing the same theories — often revolving around alleged conspiracies against him — regardless of what previous courts have ruled. This repetitive use of litigation, Pryor wrote, is part of what justified affirming the sanctions.
Middlebrooks’ Original Order
Judge Middlebrooks first issued the sanctions in January 2023, concluding that the lawsuit represented a “continuing pattern of misuse of the courts” by Trump. He argued that the judiciary cannot be turned into a stage for political narratives presented under the guise of legal claims.
Middlebrooks ruled that Trump and Habba were jointly liable for the legal costs incurred by Clinton and other defendants, which totaled just under $1 million. The judge also warned that allowing political lawsuits like this to move forward damages public trust in the courts and consumes valuable judicial resources.
What Happens Next
The 11th Circuit’s ruling does not completely close the book on Trump’s legal battles tied to this case. The Justice Department is still appealing the decision that invalidated the administration’s attempt to extend Habba’s term as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey, and Trump continues to pursue several unrelated lawsuits.
However, this latest opinion leaves Trump with few options for avoiding the sanction. He could attempt to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court is under no obligation to take the case — and experts say the odds of review are slim.
For now, the ruling stands as one of the most forceful judicial rebukes Trump has faced, not only for filing a meritless lawsuit but also for what the court described as a broader pattern of misusing legal processes to pursue political grudges. The opinion serves as a clear message from the judiciary: federal courts are not a vehicle for airing political grievances, and those who attempt to use them as such can face significant consequences.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
