The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Birmingham expressed skepticism about former President Trump’s effort to revive a racketeering lawsuit accusing Hillary Clinton, James Comey and others of fabricating ties between Trump and Russia. Judges debated whether to uphold nearly $1 million in sanctions imposed in 2023 by a district judge who found the suit frivolous. Trump’s lawyer argued for tolling the statute of limitations and pointed to FEC findings about payments tied to the dossier; opposing counsel said the alleged harms were political, not economic. The panel did not issue a decision.
Appeals Court Questions Trump's RICO Case, Weighs Nearly $1M Sanctions
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Birmingham expressed skepticism about former President Trump’s effort to revive a racketeering lawsuit accusing Hillary Clinton, James Comey and others of fabricating ties between Trump and Russia. Judges debated whether to uphold nearly $1 million in sanctions imposed in 2023 by a district judge who found the suit frivolous. Trump’s lawyer argued for tolling the statute of limitations and pointed to FEC findings about payments tied to the dossier; opposing counsel said the alleged harms were political, not economic. The panel did not issue a decision.
11:41 AM, 11/19/2025Politics
Appeals panel expresses skepticism as it revisits sprawling racketeering suit
A federal appeals court in Birmingham, Alabama, showed skepticism Tuesday toward former President Donald Trump’s bid to revive a sprawling racketeering lawsuit that accuses a range of political opponents — including Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey — of orchestrating a campaign to falsely link him to Russia.
The three-judge 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel also considered whether to uphold roughly $1 million in sanctions that a district judge imposed on Trump and his then-attorney, Alina Habba, after finding the litigation frivolous in 2023.
Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., the George W. Bush appointee presiding over the panel, said he viewed Trump’s pleadings — which totaled 108 pages in the initial filing and 193 pages in a later version — as violating federal pleading rules by lumping together numerous defendants and claims without clear, focused allegations.
"I can read this complaint. It seems a classic shotgun complaint. It incorporates, by reference, hundreds of paragraphs into succeeding counts," Pryor said.
Richard Klugh, representing Trump, urged the court to reject a statute-of-limitations defense and allow the suit to proceed. He argued that Congress permits tolling or equitable extensions of filing periods in certain circumstances and that Trump’s presidential term from 2017 to 2021 warranted extra time.
Klugh also told the judges that participants in the alleged scheme moved to conceal their activities, pointing to a Federal Election Commission finding that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign mischaracterized payments tied to a dossier alleging links between Trump and Russia. Those payments were reported as "legal services" or "legal and compliance consulting" to the law firm Perkins Coie, with some funds later paid to the research firm Fusion GPS. The committees agreed to pay combined penalties of $113,000 without admitting wrongdoing.
In a blistering 2023 opinion, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks of Florida described Trump’s complaint as "a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion," saying the case should never have been brought and characterizing it as an effort to harass.
At the request of defendant public-relations executive Charles Dolan, Middlebrooks imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions against Trump, Habba and Habba’s law firm for pursuing what he found to be an unsupported and inaccurate lawsuit. Dolan’s attorney urged the appeals court to leave the sanctions in place, saying his client had been wrongly portrayed in the complaint.
Judge Andrew Brasher, a Trump appointee on the panel, suggested Middlebrooks may have erred in dismissing one claim — for "injurious falsehoods" — on statute-of-limitations grounds, noting some statements could fall within the relevant two-year window. But David Kendall, longtime counsel for the Clintons, countered that Trump failed to allege the necessary element for such a claim: that any false statements were intended to cause economic harm to Trump’s businesses or property rather than political injury.
The appeals panel, which also includes Judge Embry Kidd, a Biden appointee, did not issue a ruling after Tuesday’s hearing.