Supreme Court Orders Hillary Clinton To Respond to Trump’s Allegation of an ‘Unthinkable Plot’ Against Him

The Supreme Court’s order that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton respond to a petition from President Trump seeking to revive his lawsuit claiming she conspired to “weave a false narrative” about the 2016 election suggests that at least one justice is intrigued by the president’s claims.Mr. Trump first brought his lawsuit against Mrs. Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in Florida in 2022. He sought $72 million in damages. Mr. Trump accused his adversaries of concocting a “false narrative” that he and his 2016 campaign had colluded with Russia. The suit alleged “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood.”Mrs. Clinton responded to the filing of the suit with a one-word post on social media: “nonsense.” Her lawyers contended in court that the suit amounted to a “fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances.” Mr. Trump alleges that America’s former top diplomat engaged in an “unthinkable plot” against him.The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court judge, Donald Middlebrooks, as a “two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him.” Judge Middlebrooks also ordered Mr. Trump and his lead attorney in the case, Alina Habba, to pay $1 million in sanctions for making “knowingly false” factual allegations and asserting “frivolous” legal theories. Both the sanctions and the dismissal were upheld by the 11th United States Circuit Court of Appeals.Last month, Mr. Trump appealed the 11th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Nine’s intervention is “necessary to protect the presidency, and to prevent judicial disagreement from becoming a license to punish its advocates.” Judge Middlebrooks had ruled that many of Mr. Trump’s claims were barred by the expiration of the statutes of limitations. The president contends, though, that those deadlines should have been tolled while he carried out his constitutional duties as president.Mrs. Clinton has waived her right to respond to Mr. Trump’s petition for certiorari, likely reasoning that the high court would reject the 47th president’s request for review. Now, however, with its order last week, it is clear that at least one justice — it is not known which one — wants to hear more from the 67th secretary of state. Her brief opposing Mr. Trump’s petition is due November 27. For the Supreme Court to take up the case, at least four justices must agree.The decision whether to add Donald J. Trump v. Hillary R. Clinton to the docket will be made at a private conference. At issue could be the landmark precedent of Clinton v. Jones, from 1997, which held that a sitting president has no immunity from civil litigation over unofficial, private actions committed before taking office. The 11th Circuit reasoned that “if a president can be haled into court, he cannot be excused from suing to enforce his rights.”Mr. Trump, though, distinguishes Clinton, in which President Clinton was sued by Paula Jones, from the present case that he is bringing. The president writes that the earlier case “permitted another citizen’s suit against the President while requiring respect for the Presidency; it did not require him to pursue his own claims while in office or lose them.”Mr. Trump also claims that the high court’s ruling in Trump v. United States, from 2024, militates in favor of allowing his suit to proceed. That case, though, concerned Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution, not a civil suit like the one brought by Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump has another private civil matter pending before the Supreme Court: his appeal of the $83 million verdict secured against him for defamation by the sex and advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. A Manhattan jury found Mr. Trump liable in 2024, and the verdict and judgment were subsequently upheld by the Second United States Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Trump cites presidential immunity, as well as the size of the verdict, as reasons for the high court to intervene.The president has already paid Mrs. Carroll $5 million pursuant to a separate verdict stemming from allegations of sexual abuse and defamation. That award was finalized in August, when the justices declined to revisit the case.

Supreme Court Orders Hillary Clinton To Respond to Trump’s Allegation of an ‘Unthinkable Plot’ Against Him

Supreme Court Orders Hillary Clinton To Respond to Trump’s Allegation of an ‘Unthinkable Plot’ Against Him

More from the New York Sun

El-Sayed’s Campaign Rakes In $2.4 Million in 24 Hours After Stevens’s Endorsement of His Republican Opponent

From Cars to TVs: Supermarket Refrigerator Hacks Highlight Growing Risks of Connected Devices

The Road to Cormac McCarthy’s Undoing

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Intervene in California Ballot Dispute One Day Before Midterm Election

Mamdani Threatens To Sue ICE, but Feds Will Keep ‘Cleaning Up’ the Streets Democrats Refuse To Protect, Agency Says

Pregnant Lexi Thompson Embraces Indoor League as a New Stage for Women’s Golf

Gruet Expectations Get a New Label

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: ‘Criticizing Islamism Is Neither Islamophobic Nor Racist’

More from the New York Sun

El-Sayed’s Campaign Rakes In $2.4 Million in 24 Hours After Stevens’s Endorsement of His Republican Opponent

From Cars to TVs: Supermarket Refrigerator Hacks Highlight Growing Risks of Connected Devices

The Road to Cormac McCarthy’s Undoing

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Intervene in California Ballot Dispute One Day Before Midterm Election

Mamdani Threatens To Sue ICE, but Feds Will Keep ‘Cleaning Up’ the Streets Democrats Refuse To Protect, Agency Says

Pregnant Lexi Thompson Embraces Indoor League as a New Stage for Women’s Golf

Gruet Expectations Get a New Label

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: ‘Criticizing Islamism Is Neither Islamophobic Nor Racist’