NY Federal Judge Throws Out Democratic National Committee's Suit Over Russian Hacking
Koeltl said the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shielded the Russian Federation from being sued in federal court, and 'second-level participants' were protected under the First Amendment for their roles in sharing information that had been illegally obtained.
July 30, 2019 at 05:34 PM
5 minute read
A Manhattan federal judge Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump and members of his campaign could not be held liable for Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computers ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
U.S. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York said the Russian Federation was the “primary wrongdoer” in an alleged criminal enterprise, which also included WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, foreign nationals and others close to the Trump campaign.
However, Koeltl, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said federal law shielded Russia from being sued in U.S. federal courts. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, such remedies can only be pursued through state actions, including sanctions imposed by the president or Congress.
The “second-level participants,” meanwhile, had not aided Russia in carrying out the hacks, and were thus shielded by the First Amendment for their role in sharing information that had been illegally obtained.
“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” Koeltl wrote in an 81-page opinion, issued late Thursday.
“The plausible allegations against the remaining defendants are insufficient to hold them liable for the illegality that occurred in obtaining the materials from the DNC,” he said.
The DNC's suit, filed in April 2018, seized on multiple attacks on DNC computers that were carried out from Moscow, and claimed that Russia had found in the Trump campaign a “willing and active partner” in its mission to interfere with the 2016 election.
According to the complaint, Russian agents made it clear through “multiple meetings, emails and other communications” that the Kremlin had favored Trump and intended to do damage to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party. However, instead of reporting inappropriate contacts by Russian agents to federal authorities, the campaign “gleefully welcomed” Russia's help and even publicly encouraged the hacks, the suit said.
According to the lawsuit, the damage was profound. The DNC said that it had suffered a “dramatic drop” in donations. It had to pay more than $1 million to repair and fix its cybersecurity issues, and staff members, the complaint said, suffered harassment, including death threats.
However, the suit also aims to “address the individual and collective conduct” of the named defendants, who included Trump adviser Roger Stone and WikiLeaks—both named defendants—to the meeting between then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr.—all also named defendants—and a Russian attorney who promised “dirt” on Clinton.
In total, the lawsuit claimed 14 counts against the defendants, including racketeering, conspiracy and trespass.
The defendants all moved to dismiss the suit, and the Trump campaign moved for sanctions, claiming that many of the DNC's allegations and theories were undercut by the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the election.
The Russian Federation did not appear in the case, but did submit a statement claiming immunity.
On Tuesday, Koeltl said the case did not meet a narrow exception to FISA, which allows foreign governments to be sued only on the basis of commercial activity.
“Therefore, the DNC's claims against the Russian Federation are barred by the FISA and no exception applies,” Koeltl said. “Relief from the alleged activities of the Russian Federation should be from the political branches of the government and not from the courts.”
Koeltl also struck down claims that the remaining defendants had actively participated in the hacks, at one point calling the DNC's arguments “entirely divorced” from the facts alleged in its complaint.
However, he stopped short of granting the campaign's Rule 11 motion, finding the complaint was not “so objectively unreasonable” as to warrant sanctions in the case.
Attorneys for the DNC and the Trump campaign did not return calls seeking comment on the ruling.
The case was captioned DNC v. Russian Federation.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC's New 'Click To Cancel' Rule Is Here, But Will It Survive Judicial Challenge?
9 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readEx-Moody's GC Gets 8 Months in Prison for Not Filing Tax Returns on $54M in Income
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250