Can the Democrats sue their way back into power? Probably not. But a new lawsuit, based on Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, suggests the presence of a new fighting spirit in the Party—and provides a chance to make a few important discoveries.

Last week, the Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar suit against more than a dozen people, entities, and countries (well, one country), charging that “Russia mounted a brazen attack on American democracy” with the goal of “destabilizing the U.S. political environment, denigrating the Democratic presidential nominee, and supporting the campaign of Donald J. Trump, whose policies would benefit the Kremlin.” The defendants in the case include the Russian Federation, Russian military intelligence, the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, and Donald J. Trump, Jr. The candidate who was the beneficiary of this alleged conspiracy, who is now the President of the United States, is not a defendant—yet.

The complaint, in sixty-six pages, tells a familiar story, largely because it is, at this point, drawn mostly from media reports. Russian interference in the election has become so well known that it is easy to forget a truth that is distilled in the complaint:the intervention was, in significant part, a crime—and one with a clear victim, the D.N.C. itself. As the complaint notes, “Russia’s cyberattack on the DNC began only weeks after Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States in June of 2015. . . . By June of 2016, Russia had stolen thousands of DNC documents and emails.” The e-mails of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, and those of a handful of subordinates were also hacked and disseminated. To date, no person or entity has been held accountable for these crimes.

And that, of course, is easier said than done. Thanks to a legal doctrine known as foreign-sovereign immunity, it’s nearly impossible, except in cases of terrorism, to sue another nation (to say nothing of its military) in a United States court. Likewise, WikiLeaks and its leader, Julian Assange (who is currently still holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London), maintain only shadowy presences in the United States; it will be difficult for the plaintiffs in the case to serve these defendants and force them to appear in the Manhattan federal court where the case was brought. But several other defendants will undoubtedly be forced to answer the charges. These include, most notably, representatives of the Trump campaign and Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr. These defendants will certainly ask that the charges be thrown out, arguing that they have no connection to the hacking that is at the core of the case. But candidate Trump’s own comments —“I love WikiLeaks!” or “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the thirty thousand e-mails that are missing”—may suggest enough of a connection for the judge to let the case to proceed to discovery. (The D.N.C. suit is a civil action, so it will not result in any criminal liability.) And that may be the point of the whole enterprise.

To date, the victims of Russian hacking, and the Democratic Party generally, have had to wait for others to investigate this seminal series of events in the campaign. Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is conducting a thorough investigation, but he’s operating in secret, and it’s not clear when, or if, the results of his probe will be made public. The investigation in the House of Representatives degenerated into partisan acrimony, and the one in the Senate is more focussed on legislative fixes than on extensive fact-finding. The news media have been aggressive, but reporters lack subpoena power. If the D.N.C. lawsuit is allowed to proceed to discovery, it will be the first chance for compelled, sworn interviews with many of the key players, including, perhaps, the President himself. (Based on what the plaintiffs learn, Trump may be added as a defendant.) Plus, the D.N.C. lawyers will have the chance to obtain e-mails and documents from the Trump campaign that may illuminate any connections between the campaign and the Russians.

The D.N.C. lawsuit has been criticized as a fund-raising stunt and an undue politicization of the investigation. As far as fund-raising goes, the case is probably a good idea, considering the depleted state of the Party’s coffers. More important, though, is the fatuousness of the claim that the Democrats are fighting too hard. (Democrats also sued President Richard Nixon’s reëlection committee, known as CREEP, after the Watergate break-in, in a case that produced some important discoveries and ended in a seven-hundred-and-fifty-thousand-dollar settlement reached on the day Nixon left office; in a nice bit of poetic symmetry, John Koeltl, the judge in the current D.N.C. case, was a young prosecutor on the staff of Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor.) Especially in the age of Trump, no one gets any credit for decorum or patience. It’s not as if Trump and his allies would have credited the Democrats for their restraint if they hadn’t filed this case, or as if the President would have decided to coöperate more fully with Mueller. This is a season for total partisan warfare, and the courts are a battlefield, too, and that’s where the Democrats are now taking their place.