Story · January 22, 2023

Judge hits Trump, Alina Habba, law firm with $937,989.39 sanctions in Clinton suit

Legal hangover Confidence 5/5
★★★★☆Fuckup rating 4/5
Serious fuckup Ranked from 1 to 5 stars based on the scale of the screwup and fallout.
Correction: a federal judge ordered Trump, Alina Habba and her law firm to pay $937,989.39 in sanctions on Jan. 19, 2023.

A federal judge in Florida on Jan. 19, 2023 ordered Donald Trump, his lead lawyer Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates to pay $937,989.39 in sanctions over a lawsuit tied to Hillary Clinton and other defendants. Judge Donald Middlebrooks said the case should never have been filed and described it as frivolous, legally deficient and brought for an improper political purpose.

The sanctions order came after the court had already thrown out the underlying case. In the Jan. 19 ruling, Middlebrooks said the amended complaint lacked a cognizable legal claim and that Trump and his lawyers had persisted even after the defendants identified the problems. He found that the conduct justified shifting fees and costs to Trump, Habba and the firm, and said they were jointly and severally liable for the total amount.

Middlebrooks’ order also pointed to the scale of the litigation, noting that 31 individuals and entities had been drawn into the dispute. The court said the lawsuit was not just weak, but an abuse of the judicial process that wasted resources and advanced a political narrative instead of a viable legal theory.

The dollar figure is not rounded in the order: $937,989.39. The date matters too. Jan. 22 was the edition date for this story, not the date the sanctions were issued. The order itself was signed and entered three days earlier, on Jan. 19, 2023.

Proof attached

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Threaded replies, voting, and reports are live. New users still go through screening on their first approved comments.

Log in to comment


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.