Trump Taking Legal Battle Against Hillary Clinton to Supreme Court
Nearly a decade after their bitter 2016 presidential contest, President Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could once again find themselves on opposing sides—this time before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Trump is seeking review of a lower-court decision that dismissed his civil conspiracy lawsuit against Clinton and upheld nearly $1 million in sanctions against the president, attorney Alina Habba, and her New Jersey law firm.
Justice Clarence Thomas granted Trump additional time this week to submit his petition in Trump v. Clinton. The president now has until Sept. 9 to formally ask the Supreme Court to hear the dispute.
Thomas’ order is strictly procedural and offers no indication of how he—or any other justice—views the merits of Trump’s arguments. As the justice responsible for emergency and administrative matters arising from the relevant federal circuit, Thomas routinely handles requests for filing extensions.
Once Trump submits the petition, at least four justices must vote to accept the case before it can proceed.
The president’s attorneys filed their extension request on July 23, arguing that the forthcoming petition will present “exceptionally important” questions. They also warned that the appellate decision and accompanying sanctions order “carries with it profound impact on the Presidency, and the nation as a whole.”
The expected appeal reaches beyond Trump’s allegations concerning the origins of the Russia-collusion narrative. It may also challenge the circumstances under which federal courts can impose severe financial sanctions against a sitting president and his attorneys for pursuing civil claims.
The federal appellate court reviewing the lawsuit sharply rejected many of the arguments submitted by Trump and Habba, finding that they lacked legal merit. It consequently affirmed sanctions approaching $1 million against the president, his attorney, and her firm.
Trump’s original complaint accused Clinton and other defendants of conspiring to promote what he described as a fabricated narrative connecting his 2016 campaign to Russian interference in the election.
A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, and the appeals court upheld that ruling. The available extension filing did not identify the appellate circuit responsible for the decision.
For conservatives, the case remains inseparable from the larger controversy surrounding the Russia investigation—a years-long political and media campaign that consumed much of Trump’s first term and undermined the presidency voters had chosen in 2016.
The Clinton case is one of several Trump-related disputes currently moving toward the Supreme Court.
In a separate defamation case against CNN, Trump challenged the network’s use of the phrase “big lie” when describing his claims about the 2020 presidential election. Thomas also granted additional time for the president to file that petition, which is due Aug. 14.
Trump is simultaneously pursuing another challenge connected to the E. Jean Carroll litigation. After the Supreme Court declined to consider his initial appeal last month, the president filed a rehearing petition on July 8, asking the justices to reconsider the damages judgment against him. The court agreed to consider the rehearing request, an uncommon procedural development.
Together, the three matters raise different questions involving judicial sanctions, defamation law, and civil liability. They also place several of the most consequential legal battles involving the sitting president directly before the nation’s highest court.
Clinton has not publicly addressed the extension granted to Trump. Although she remains a named defendant, the available filings do not show that she separately participated in the request.
The other defendants named in Trump’s original complaint were not identified in the available court records.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the Clinton dispute. But the additional time gives Trump’s legal team another opportunity to argue that the courts must confront both the extraordinary sanctions imposed against him and the enduring legal consequences of the Russia-collusion allegations promoted after the 2016 election.