2026-06-15 13:52:14 / 路透社
2016年12月12日，美国当选总统唐纳德·特朗普的前顾问卡特·佩奇在俄罗斯莫斯科的一场发布会中向听众发言。路透社/谢尔盖·卡尔普金/档案照片 购买授权，打开新标签页
- 内容摘要
- 佩奇曾担任特朗普2016年总统竞选团队顾问
- 诉讼指控前联邦调查局官员非法窃听
华盛顿6月15日路透电 — 美国最高法院拒绝受理特朗普2016年总统竞选团队前顾问卡特·佩奇的上诉申请，佩奇希望恢复针对前联邦调查局官员的诉讼，指控他们在当年联邦调查局调查俄罗斯干预大选期间，非法获取对其进行监视的搜查令。
最高法院周一驳回了佩奇的上诉，此前下级法院驳回了他2020年提起诉讼的剩余诉求，该诉讼称自己是非法窃听的受害者。据报道，特朗普政府同意支付125万美元，以解决他针对政府提出的其余索赔。
路透社每日简报通讯可为您提供开启一天所需的全部新闻。点击此处订阅。
该部分和解协议仍留下了佩奇针对多名前官员提出的索赔诉求未解决，其中包括前联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米、其前副手安德鲁·麦凯，以及曾承认篡改用于申请法院批准对佩奇进行电话监听的电子邮件的前联邦调查局律师凯文·克莱因史密斯。
佩奇的诉讼声称，他在以志愿者身份加入特朗普2016年总统竞选团队的非正式外交政策咨询委员会期间，成为联邦调查局监视计划的目标，该计划旨在确认竞选团队中是否有人与俄罗斯协调相关活动。
联邦调查局在调查期间从外国情报监控法庭获得了四份对佩奇进行监视的搜查令。
但美国司法部监察长随后的审查发现，联邦调查局在向该法庭提交的搜查令申请中存在多处错误。该法庭负责审核各机构提出的机密监视搜查令申请。监察总长得益的相关主报告于2019年特朗普首届总统任期内发布。
佩奇从未被指控有罪，且否认与俄罗斯存在任何不当沟通或关联。在哥伦比亚特区美国联邦上诉法院2025年维持原判，以诉讼已过时效为由驳回佩奇的诉讼后，他向最高法院申请受理此案。
哥伦比亚特区上诉法院表示，佩奇的监视索赔适用三年诉讼时效，时效自佩奇首次知晓联邦调查局的监视行动时起算，法院认定该时间点为2017年4月《华盛顿邮报》刊登的一篇有关此次监视行动的文章。
佩奇在请求最高法院审理此案时辩称，诉讼时效的起算点应为政府承认非法对其进行监视之时，而非匿名消息源报道的新闻发布之时。
内特·雷蒙德波士顿报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
我们的报道准则：汤森路透信托原则，打开新标签页
内特·雷蒙德负责报道联邦司法体系与诉讼相关新闻。您可通过nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com与他取得联系。
Supreme Court won’t hear Trump ex-campaign aide’s bid to sue former FBI officials
2026-06-15 13:52:14 / Reuters
One-time advisor of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump Carter Page addresses the audience during a presentation in Moscow, Russia, December 12, 2016. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Summary
- Page was adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign
- Lawsuit alleged unlawful spying by former FBI officials
WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a bid by Carter Page, an adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, to revive a lawsuit against former FBI officials accusing them of unlawfully obtaining warrants to surveil him during its probe into Russian interference in that year’s election.
The justices on Monday turned away Page’s
appeal, opens new tab
of rulings by lower courts dismissing remaining elements of a lawsuit he filed in 2020 alleging he had been the victim of unlawful spying. The Trump administration agreed to pay a reported $1.25 million to resolve the rest of the claims he had also brought against the government.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
That partial settlement left remaining claims Page had also been pursuing against numerous former officials. They include former FBI Director James Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe and Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email that had been used to seek court approval to wiretap Page.
Page’s lawsuit alleged that, while volunteering as a member of an informal foreign policy advisory committee to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign, he became a target of an FBI surveillance program aimed at determining if anyone associated with the campaign was coordinating activities with Russia.
The FBI during the investigation obtained four warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Page.
But later reviews by the U.S. Justice Department’s inspector general discovered that the FBI made numerous errors in its warrant applications to the court, which is tasked with reviewing classified requests from agencies for surveillance warrants. The inspector general released its main report on the matter in 2019, during Trump’s first term as president.
Page was never charged and has denied having had any improper communications with or ties to Russia. He asked the Supreme Court to hear his case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025 upheld a judge’s dismissal of his lawsuit on the grounds that it was filed too late.
The D.C. Circuit said that his surveillance claim was subject to a three-year statute of limitations that kicked in when Page first became aware of the FBI’s surveillance, which it traced to an April 2017 article by the Washington Post about the operation.
Page, in asking the Supreme Court to consider his case, argued that the clock for the statute of limitations should instead be found to have begun ticking when the government acknowledged unlawfully surveilling him, rather than when an anonymously sourced news story was published.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.
发表回复