The Supreme Court on Tuesday told Hillary Clinton to respond to a petition from President Donald Trump that seeks to revive his lawsuit that claims she conspired with others ahead of the 2016 election to “weave a false narrative” that his campaign colluded with Russia.

Lower courts have rejected Trump’s suit, and he wants the justices to intervene. Clinton and her civil co-defendants initially waived their right to respond to Trump’s petition. Had the court not requested a response, that would have all but guaranteed that the petition was headed for denial.

Although the response request is good news for Trump, it doesn’t necessarily signal the court is certain to grant review of his petition. Because it takes only one justice to request a response, it’s unclear how much of an appetite there is on the nine-member bench to take this one up. Response requests don’t specify how many justices asked for the response, nor do they explain why the response was requested.

It takes four justices to grant review.

Clinton’s brief opposing Trump’s petition is now due Nov. 27. The justices will consider in a private conference at some point after that whether to grant review. The Democrat recently made news for endorsing expanding the number of justices who sit on the court that currently has a 6-3 majority of Republican appointees.

Trump argues that he put off bringing the civil case during his first term due to his presidential responsibilities at the time. In his petition, his personal lawyers cast high court review as “necessary to protect the Presidency, and to prevent judicial disagreement from becoming a license to punish its advocates.”

The lower courts have rejected Trump so far. A conservative appeals court upheld a district judge’s ruling that dismissed his suit and imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions against him, Alina Habba and her law firm. The appellate panel noted that many of his and Habba’s legal claims “were indeed frivolous.”

The panel also cited the Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Clinton v. Jones that said Bill Clinton couldn’t avoid judicial process in civil litigation while he was in office. “If a president can be haled into court, he cannot be excused from suing to enforce his rights,” the panel reasoned.

In his Supreme Court petition, Trump’s lawyers maintained that there is an important distinction between suing and being sued. They said the Clinton v. Jones precedent “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.”

They also cited the Supreme Court’s 2024 criminal immunity ruling in Trump’s favor to argue that courts can’t make presidents decide whether to initiate personal litigation while in office. His lawyers are pressing that position as the president pursues an array of personal litigation, including multiple defamation claims.

This case is not Trump’s only pending bid to persuade the justices to revive personal litigation that he has lost in lower courts, nor is it the only one to invoke the presidency in doing so.

Although the Supreme Court has already rejected one of his two petitions seeking to reverse his defamation losses against the writer E. Jean Carroll, his second petition is awaiting a response from Carroll before the justices decide whether to grant or likewise deny that one. There, too, his lawyers cite the criminal immunity ruling in seeking to overturn the $83.3 million judgment Carroll won for statements Trump made during his first term.

The president is also pressing a defamation appeal against CNN over the network’s use of the phrase “big lie” regarding his 2020 election claims. That petition is awaiting a response from CNN, which, as happened in this Clinton litigation, the court requested after the network waived its right to respond.

The post Supreme Court wants to hear from Hillary Clinton before deciding on Trump’s petition appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Donald Trump-backed lawyer has been “unlawfully serving” as the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. The decision regarding Bill Essayli’s service does not immediately take effect, and Essayli said the Supreme Court “will ultimately decide” the legality of his tenure.

The justices may have the last word not only on Essayli but also on a host of lawyers who have purported to lead districts around the country without being confirmed by the Senate. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright noted in his ruling that the federal government has asked the Supreme Court to consider the issue in disputes over Trump’s chosen lawyers in Nevada (Sigal Chattah) and northern New York (John Sarcone).

In an order accompanying his ruling, Seabright, a George W. Bush appointee, gave the government a chance to try to halt his ruling pending appeal as the administration presses the appointment issue to the justices.

Urging the high court to use the Nevada case to resolve the nationwide issue, the Justice Department argued that lower court rulings against the administration “misconstrue” the law that deals with federal vacancies, “upend a quarter-century of practice,” “threaten chaos for the next presidential transition” and “cast a pall over prosecutions in 14 judicial districts nationwide.”

We could learn later this year whether and when the justices will take up the matter. They could grant review to decide it this term after holding a hearing and issuing a ruling that would be expected by July.

Meanwhile, given Seabright’s pause on his decision taking immediate effect, Essayli said he will “continue running the office.” The New York Times included Essayli on its list of prosecutors who are “carrying out Trump’s grievance agenda,” writing that he “has pushed to charge cases against anti-Trump protesters, many of which fell apart in court” and “carried out a direct order from Mr. Trump to open an investigation of voting in the state.”

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Judge says Trump prosecutor in LA is ‘unlawfully serving’ in latest hit to Trump’s DOJ appeared first on MS NOW.