The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Carter Page's effort to revive a lawsuit targeting former FBI Director James Comey and seven other bureau officials over surveillance conducted during the 2016 Russian interference investigation.
Page, a Trump campaign adviser, had challenged what he described as inaccuracies in federal warrant applications that authorized surveillance on him. A Justice Department inspector general investigation later confirmed those applications contained significant flaws.
The core obstacle to Page's case was timing. A lower federal court found he had waited too long to sue, a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Supreme Court's rejection left that ruling intact.
The lawsuit alleged FBI officials and government agencies violated various federal laws. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, however, only claims against Comey and the individual agents remained in dispute, centered on alleged violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Other claims Page brought against the federal government itself were recently settled by the Trump administration, removing them from the legal equation. A Justice Department spokesman characterized the settlement as a vindication of Page's complaints.
"No American should ever face covert and unlawful surveillance based on their political view," the spokesman said in a statement. "The investigation into Carter Page, a man never charged with a single crime, relied on inherently flawed and uncorroborated information, proving it was a political sham from the get-go."
President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation as a hoax and had publicly defended Page throughout the legal proceedings, accusing the FBI of acting with political motivation.
Comey's attorney, David N. Kelley, declined to comment when details of the partial settlement emerged in Supreme Court filings in April.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The Supreme Court's decision effectively closes the book on Page's personal liability claims against the bureau leadership, even as the settlement itself suggests the government agreed those surveillance applications were fundamentally compromised."
Comments