What are some notable examples of Donald Trump's frivolous lawsuits?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump has been sanctioned repeatedly for lawsuits courts called frivolous; most recently an appeals court upheld nearly $1 million in sanctions over his 2022 racketeering-style suit against Hillary Clinton, James Comey and others, finding “many” arguments “indeed frivolous” and that the case “should never have been filed” [1] [2]. Critics note a long pattern of high-volume, aggressive litigation — including dismissed defamation suits and media suits that produced settlements — while Trump simultaneously has pushed government action against what he labels “frivolous” claims by others [3] [4].
1. The high‑profile sanction: the Clinton/Comey suit that courts called “frivolous”
Federal judges tossed Trump’s 2022 lawsuit seeking roughly $24 million against Hillary Clinton, former FBI director James Comey and others, with U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks calling the complaint “a two‑hundred‑page political manifesto” and saying it “should never have been filed”; Middlebrooks ordered almost $1 million in sanctions, a penalty the 11th Circuit unanimously upheld, concluding that many of the legal arguments were frivolous and that Trump and his lawyer engaged in “sanctionable conduct” [5] [1] [2].
2. Patterns in Trump’s litigation strategy: many suits, mixed outcomes
Observers and court rulings point to a broader pattern: Trump has filed thousands of cases over decades and in recent years has mounted multiple high‑stakes suits against media organizations and political adversaries. Some of those suits were dismissed; others produced large out‑of‑court settlements (for example, reported settlements with ABC/Disney and Paramount in 2024–2025), underscoring a mix of courtroom losses and negotiated wins [6] [7].
3. Examples beyond the Clinton suit: dismissed defamation and media claims
Reporting and trackers document notable dismissals: a 2022 defamation suit against CNN was thrown out by a federal judge, and Trump’s broader resort to multibillion‑dollar media suits has been characterized as part of a pattern of using litigation to pressure news organizations — sometimes successfully extracting settlements, sometimes failing in court [5] [6] [7].
4. Critics call out hypocrisy in Trump’s “war” on frivolous suits
While Trump has directed his administration to pursue sanctions and disciplinary actions against lawyers he accuses of “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation,” commentators and legal observers label that posture as ironic given courts’ finding that several suits filed by Trump himself were frivolous and that he has been described by a judge as engaging in strategic abuses of the judicial process [3] [4].
5. Where reporting diverges: settlements, politics and legal standards
News outlets differ on tone and emphasis. Conservative outlets report the sanctions and upholdings plainly while noting Trump’s continued litigation; investigative and opinion pieces stress the political motive and volume of filings. Legal standards matter: courts distinguish between politically motivated filings and meritorious claims, and while sanctions are rare, the 11th Circuit’s unanimous ruling made clear a judicial consensus in that case that the complaint lacked a legal basis [8] [1].
6. What the record does and does not show
Available sources document the Clinton/Comey sanction and other dismissed suits and settlements, and they record Trump’s directive to attack “frivolous” litigation by others [5] [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, court‑by‑court list of every suit a particular judge has labeled frivolous beyond those widely reported; they also do not offer a single definitive metric for when high‑volume litigants cross the line into sanctionable conduct outside specific court findings (not found in current reporting).
7. Why this matters politically and legally
Sanctions for frivolous litigation signal judicial limits on using courts as political weapons; they impose financial consequences and create legal precedent that counsel and litigants cannot plead claims without a factual and legal basis. At the same time, settlements and ongoing filings show litigation remains a tool of influence and retaliation in politics, raising questions about access, legal ethics and whether enforcement is evenhanded — debates reflected across the cited reporting [1] [6] [4].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the sources provided and therefore cites court rulings, settlements and commentary available in that reporting; it does not attempt to catalog every Trump‑filed case or to assess claims outside these accounts (not found in current reporting).