Trump filed suit against Hillary Clinton et al a few weeks ago, saying she slandered him during the 2016 campaign. Of course, Trump has spent his life filing frivolous lawsuits.
Now, an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch argues he should face some kind of penalty for that.
In many (all?) states, there is a concept of “vexatious litigant”. People who file too many frivolous lawsuits can be declared a vexatious litigant, whereafter they must get approval from a court before being allowed to file any more suits.
Does any similar concept exist in the Federal courts (either in statutory law or case law?)
If not, should there be? (It’s this question that puts this OP into IMHO rather than FQ territory.)
A District Court is empowered to enjoin litigants who have abusive histories of litigation or who file frivolous lawsuits from continuing to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Section 1651
states that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue writs necessary and appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). “‘A District Court not only may, but should, protect its ability to carry out its constitutional functions against the threat of onerous, multiplicitous, and baseless litigation.’” Safir v. United States Lines, Inc.,729 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd Cir. 1986), quoting
Abdullah v. Gatton, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2nd Cir. 1985). Federal courts possess the inherent power “to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions
under the appropriate circumstances.” Delong v. Hennesey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.1990). Enjoining litigants from filing new actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is one such
restriction that the District Court may take. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147. A Defendant who has been enjoined under § 1651 from filing new actions is deemed a “vexatious litigant” for federal purposes
It’s a jurisdiction that is exercised very sparingly - as a fundamental principle, people have a right of access to the courts, so a high bar has to be crossed before this will be restricted.
It’s not enough that Trump has been involved in numerous lawsuits; it’s necessary that there should be a pattern of abusive and/or frivolous lawsuits - lawsuits alleging things which, even if proved, are not against the law; lawsuits seeking relief which the court cannot grant; a pattern of lawsuits in which startling facts are pleaded but, when the matter comes to trial, no supporting evidence is provided; that kind of thing.
I know of someone labeled as a vexatious litigant. They literally have to get court approval to sue anyone anymore. THey have to go to court and convince a judge that they have a good reason to bring a lawsuit.
I’m not seeing the problem here, exactly. Vexatious litigants still can sue people. They just have an extra step they need to take first – that is, petition the court before they drag the intended defendant into it.
Leave to institute proceedings is not granted automatically - if the court thinks the intended proceedings are frivolous or abusive it won’t grant leave. The intended defendant will never be troubled with the proceedings, and the intended plaintiff will have to wear the costs of the petition.
Trump is known for suing everyone over everything, just to drag people through the courts until they give up. That’s his whole MO. Why should he not be declared a vexatious litigant? He can still sue people when the court decides that he has a real plausible case.
Well, has anybody tried to have him declared a vexatious litigant? To succeed, you’ve have to show a lot more than just that he launches a lot of lawsuits, and is reluctant to negotiate or agree settlements. You’d have to show that the lawsuits themselves were frivolous and abusive - that they had no chance of success, were ill-founded legally speaking, systematically asserted grounding facts which are later abandoned without any attempt to prove them, seek inappropriate or impossible relief, that kind of thing.
The issue here is not the use that Trump makes of the lawsuits; it’s the lawsuits themselves. They need to be intrinsically vexatious. The combination of a high volume of litigation and an aggressive approach in conducting litigation is not, in itself, sufficient to persuade the courts to justify limiting someone’s right of access to the courts.