A federal court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump and his former lawyer, Alina Habba, are still liable for a $1 million penalty for filing a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, former FBI director James Comey, and several others. The ruling, issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the original 2023 decision, which had been contested by Trump and Habba as part of an appeal.
The lawsuit, which was ultimately dismissed, was filed by Trump in relation to Russian collusion claims. He initially faced a $1 million penalty in 2023, but the court’s ruling remained unchanged as the appeal was rejected. In addition to Clinton and Comey, the case also included prominent figures such as Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Trump and Habba, who now serves as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, will have to pay approximately $938,000, which will be divided among the dozens of individuals named in the lawsuit. The court’s decision emphasized the frivolous nature of the original legal action, describing it as motivated by a ‘bad faith’ intent to retaliate against political adversaries.
Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who wrote the original 2023 ruling, stated that Trump is a ‘prolific and sophisticated litigant’ who frequently uses the courts to seek revenge on political opponents. He added that Trump is ‘the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process,’ a claim that has drawn significant scrutiny from legal experts and critics.
Despite the court’s rejection of the appeal, two defendants in the case claimed that Trump’s appeal itself was also frivolous and sought further sanctions. However, the court did not agree, and no additional penalties were issued for the appeal. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment, but they have yet to respond.
Separately, a federal court recently dismissed false statements charges against Comey, who had been accused of violating the law by making certain allegations in his testimony. The charges were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney, Lindsay Halligan, who Trump appointed just weeks prior. This development has sparked debates about potential political bias in the legal process and the influence of high-level executive appointments on judicial proceedings.
The ruling came just days after a separate case involving Comey’s criminal charges was dismissed, with Judge Cameron Currie ruling that the charges were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney. Currie, a Clinton appointee, had been brought in from out of state to handle the case due to conflict of interest issues with the Virginian judges. The case against Halligan was consolidated with Comey’s due to their similarity, highlighting growing concerns about the politicization of legal appointments and the integrity of the judiciary.