Supreme Court Requests Hillary Clinton’s Response in Trump Lawsuit Revival Bid

The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested a response from Hillary Clinton regarding President Donald Trump’s petition to revive his dismissed lawsuit alleging that she and others conspired to create a false narrative of collusion between his 2016 campaign and Russia. The court’s move to seek Clinton’s input is a rare step that keeps the petition alive for now but does not guarantee the justices will review the case.

Background of Trump’s Lawsuit and Supreme Court Petition

President Trump’s civil suit, which has been rejected by lower courts, claims Clinton conspired ahead of the 2016 election to falsely accuse his campaign of colluding with Russia. Lower courts dismissed the case and imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions against Trump, his lawyer Alina Habba, and her law firm. The conservative appeals court panel described many of the legal claims as “indeed frivolous.”

Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court argues that he delayed filing the case during his first presidential term due to his official duties and seeks intervention to protect the presidency from what his legal team calls judicial disagreement becoming a “license to punish its advocates.”

Supreme Court’s Response Request and What It Means

Clinton and her civil co-defendants initially waived their right to respond to Trump’s petition. The Supreme Court’s decision to specifically ask Clinton for a response is unusual because it takes only one justice’s request to require a response, and it does not indicate how many justices support reviewing the case nor the reasons behind the request.

The deadline for Clinton’s brief opposing Trump’s petition is Nov. 27. After that, the justices will privately consider whether to grant review, which requires agreement from at least four of the nine justices. The current court has a 6-3 Republican-appointed majority.

Legal Arguments and Relevant Precedents

Trump’s lawyers cite the Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Clinton v. Jones, which held that President Bill Clinton could not avoid civil litigation while in office, to argue that while a president can be sued, he is not required to file his own lawsuits while serving. They also refer to a 2024 Supreme Court ruling granting Trump criminal immunity to support the position that courts cannot force a president to decide on personal litigation during their term.

The appeals court referenced Clinton v. Jones in dismissing Trump’s case, stating, “If a president can be haled into court, he cannot be excused from suing to enforce his rights.” Trump’s legal team contends this precedent permits suits against a president but does not compel him to initiate lawsuits while in office.

Other Related Litigation Pending Before the Supreme Court

This petition is one of multiple ongoing attempts by President Trump to overturn defamation rulings against him. The Supreme Court has already rejected one of his two petitions related to defamation claims by writer E. Jean Carroll. His second petition remains pending a response from Carroll. Trump’s lawyers argue the $83.3 million judgment against him should be overturned, citing the 2024 criminal immunity ruling.

Additionally, Trump is appealing a defamation case against CNN regarding the network’s use of the phrase “big lie” related to his 2020 election claims. The Supreme Court requested a response from CNN after the network initially waived its right to reply, mirroring the process seen in the Clinton litigation.

The justices’ decisions on these petitions could have significant implications for presidential litigation and the boundaries of immunity and judicial process during a president’s term.

The Supreme Court’s request for Hillary Clinton’s response keeps the door open for further review of Trump’s lawsuit but leaves the ultimate outcome uncertain as the court weighs whether to hear the case.