The settlement resolves claims brought by Page, a former adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, who argued in a 2020 lawsuit that he was subjected to improper monitoring by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Page denied any ties to Russia and was never charged with a crime. His lawsuit cited errors and omissions in surveillance applications submitted by FBI and Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, which sought authorization to monitor him as a suspected foreign agent.

The agreement was disclosed in a filing to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Page had appealed after lower courts dismissed his claims as untimely. The filing did not specify the financial terms, but a person familiar with the matter confirmed the $1.25 million figure.

The settlement does not extend to claims Page filed against individual former FBI officials, which remain separate.The lawsuit followed a critical report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which identified significant flaws in the surveillance applications.

Former officials involved in approving the warrants later said they would not have done so had they been aware of the full extent of the issues, while the FBI has since implemented more than 40 corrective measures to strengthen oversight and accuracy.

The surveillance of Page constituted only a limited part of the broader inquiry into links between Trump’s campaign and Russia. That investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, found that Russia interfered in the election in Trump’s favor but did not establish sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Moscow.

In a related development, the Justice Department reached a separate settlement last month with Michael Flynn, agreeing to pay approximately $1.2 million.

Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about contacts with a Russian diplomat before later receiving a presidential pardon.

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

In three decisions issued on March 25, 2026, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation set aside rulings by the Paris Court of Appeal dated July 7, 2022, effectively granting the group’s companies the right to contest the judicial liquidation ordered by the Paris Commercial Court on June 25, 2021.

The case marks a significant procedural turnaround after earlier rulings in 2023 had declared the group’s appeals inadmissible, closing off legal avenues for Sheikh Al Jaber’s business empire.

Defendants in the case had argued that the companies lacked standing to challenge the liquidation, asserting that prior decisions rejecting restructuring plans and ordering the sale of assets had become final.

The Court of Cassation disagreed, ruling that the companies retained a legal interest in contesting the liquidation. It held that the functions of the companies’ legal representative were not interrupted, citing the retroactive annulment of the appointment of an ad hoc administrator tasked with exercising specific rights.

This reasoning allowed the court to conclude that the companies could seek to have the legal basis of the liquidation judgment reassessed.The rulings effectively reset the legal proceedings, referring the matter back to the Paris Court of Appeal, which will hear the case with a newly constituted bench.

The decision removes the finality previously attached to both the liquidation and subsequent asset sales, introducing fresh uncertainty over outcomes that had appeared settled under earlier judgments.

The case underscores the complexities of French insolvency law, particularly around procedural rights and the status of company representatives during restructuring and liquidation phases.

By reopening the dispute, the Court of Cassation has signaled that procedural irregularities, especially those involving the appointment and revocation of legal authority figures, can have far-reaching consequences on the validity of liquidation orders.