AIA woman proceeding under the pseudonym Jane Doe filed this lawsuit in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by both men at a series of parties hosted by Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse in 1994, when the plaintiff was 13 years old. The complaint alleged rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and defamation. It described a pattern of abuse over multiple encounters that the plaintiff alleged was facilitated by an unnamed woman who recruited her with promises of money and modeling work.
The case attracted significant media attention given the identities of the defendants and the gravity of the allegations. A companion affidavit filed with the complaint included similar allegations from a second anonymous woman who claimed to have witnessed some of the events. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case in November 2016, with her attorney citing fear for her safety and the psychological toll of the publicity as the reasons for withdrawal. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of refiling, though no subsequent federal action was recorded.
AIThis lawsuit was the second complaint filed by a woman proceeding under the pseudonym Jane Doe against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of New York, filed in September 2016 — four months after the plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed an earlier action in the same court. The refiled complaint contained substantially similar allegations: that the plaintiff, who was 13 years old in 1994, had been raped and sexually abused by both Trump and Epstein at parties hosted by Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse. The complaint alleged that Epstein lured the plaintiff with promises of money and modeling opportunities and that Trump and Epstein subjected her to multiple assaults over the course of several encounters. Like the earlier filing, it included accounts from an alleged witness proceeding as a second anonymous declarant.
The refiled case attracted even greater media attention because it was filed shortly before the November 2016 presidential election. A press conference at which the plaintiff and her attorney had planned to speak publicly was canceled, with the attorney citing death threats. The plaintiff again voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in November 2016, citing fear for her safety. No criminal charges were ever brought based on these specific allegations.
AIArt Cohen filed this class action in October 2013 in the Southern District of California against Donald J. Trump, arising from Trump University — a for-profit real estate education program that operated from 2005 to 2010. Cohen and other class members alleged that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme that used deceptive marketing to lure students into paying thousands of dollars for seminars and mentorship programs that promised to teach Trump's real estate investment strategies, when in fact the instructors were not handpicked by Trump, the promised mentorship was not provided, and the courses consisted largely of high-pressure sales pitches to upsell students to ever-more-expensive program tiers.
The case was related to a parallel action originally filed in 2010 (Makaeff v. Trump University) and proceeded as the lead case in the San Diego federal court before Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who became publicly controversial when Trump, during his 2016 presidential campaign, questioned Curiel's impartiality based on his Mexican heritage. The litigation involved significant motion practice over class certification, discovery of Trump's deposition testimony, and competing motions to seal sensitive documents. On the eve of trial in November 2016, shortly after the presidential election, Trump agreed to settle both the Cohen case and related actions for $25 million, without admitting liability.
AIThe State of Washington filed this challenge in the Western District of Washington in February 2017 against President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769 — the first of his travel bans — which suspended entry into the United States of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) and temporarily halted the refugee admissions program. Washington argued the order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, equal protection guarantees, and immigration statutes, and that it would cause immediate and irreparable harm to Washington residents, businesses, and universities that depended on foreign nationals from the affected countries.
District Judge James Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order halting enforcement of the travel ban on February 3, 2017 — a ruling the Trump administration immediately challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case at the docket level captured the emergency appellate proceedings, including an amicus brief by the attorneys general of numerous other states in support of Washington's position. The Ninth Circuit unanimously denied the administration's emergency motion to stay Judge Robart's order, a decision that attracted global attention. The Trump administration subsequently issued revised versions of the travel ban, mooting the original litigation, which was voluntarily dismissed.
AISpecial Counsel Jack Smith filed this federal criminal indictment against former President Donald J. Trump in August 2023 in the District of Columbia, charging him with four felony counts arising from his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The indictment alleged that Trump had knowingly spread false claims of election fraud after his advisers informed him the claims were not supported by evidence, and that he had participated in three interlocking conspiracies to remain in power: a conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the certification of the electoral vote, a conspiracy to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, and a conspiracy against the right to vote.
The case proceeded through extensive pretrial litigation, including a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States in July 2024 holding that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts, requiring the district court to assess which alleged conduct fell within that protected zone. Following Trump's victory in the November 2024 presidential election, Special Counsel Smith moved to dismiss the case without prejudice in November 2024, citing the longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the motion.
AISonny Low, J.R. Everett, John Brown, and lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff filed this class action in April 2010 in the Southern District of California against Trump University LLC and Donald J. Trump, before Judge Gonzalo Curiel. The plaintiffs, former students, alleged that Trump University conducted fraudulent real estate seminars promising insider secrets from Donald Trump's handpicked instructors when in reality the seminars were elaborate sales pitches designed to upsell students from $1,495 programs to packages costing $35,000, with no genuine educational value.
The case became nationally prominent during the 2016 presidential election when Trump publicly and repeatedly criticized Judge Curiel, claiming his Mexican heritage made him biased. Trump's attacks on a federal judge generated enormous controversy. In December 2016, amid Trump's pending transition to the presidency, Judge Curiel approved a preliminary settlement of $25 million to compensate approximately 7,000 class members. Final approval was granted in April 2017 and the case was dismissed.
AIA woman filing under the pseudonym Katie Johnson, a self-represented plaintiff from Twentynine Palms, California, filed this lawsuit in April 2016 in the Central District of California before Judge Dolly Gee against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that when she was 13 years old in 1994, she was sexually assaulted by both Trump and Epstein at Epstein's Manhattan residence. The complaint was filed pro se.
The case was assigned on April 26, 2016 and initial documents were filed. A renewed judgment/renewal of judgment filing appeared in April 2026, more than a decade later, suggesting residual enforcement activity. The original lawsuit was withdrawn and refiled in New York before being voluntarily dismissed in November 2016.
AISpecial Counsel Jack Smith filed this federal criminal indictment against former President Donald J. Trump in June 2023 in the Southern District of Florida, charging him with 37 counts including willful retention of national defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793), obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the presidency and his alleged efforts to obstruct the government's efforts to recover them.
The case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee. After extended pretrial proceedings through 2024, Judge Cannon dismissed the indictment in July 2024, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith had been unlawfully appointed. The government appealed. Post-dismissal proceedings including appeals and miscellaneous motions continued into 2026.
AINew York Attorney General Letitia James filed this civil fraud action in September 2022 in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, against Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and multiple Trump Organization entities including Seven Springs LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC, and others. The complaint, supported by hundreds of pages of exhibits, alleged that Trump and his adult children engaged in a decade-long scheme of fraudulent and misleading asset valuations to obtain favorable loans and insurance while undervaluing the same properties for tax purposes.
After an order to show cause in October 2022, the case proceeded through extensive litigation before a commercial division judge. In February 2024, Judge Arthur Engoron issued a landmark ruling finding Trump liable and imposing approximately $364 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. Trump appealed.
AIWashington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson filed this constitutional challenge in January 2017 in the Western District of Washington before Judge James Robart, challenging President Trump's Executive Order 13769 — the first travel ban — which suspended entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries and halted the refugee program. Minnesota joined as a co-plaintiff. The complaint alleged the travel ban violated the Establishment Clause, Due Process Clause, and exceeded the President's statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Judge Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on February 3, 2017, halting enforcement of the travel ban. The Ninth Circuit declined to stay the TRO in a widely watched ruling. The Trump administration then issued a revised executive order. The Washington case was one of several that shaped the ultimately successful legal challenges to the travel ban that eventually reached the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii.
AIThe Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed suit in July 2016 in the District of Columbia against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before Judge James Boasberg, seeking to block the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) from being constructed beneath Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, sacred waters adjacent to the Standing Rock Reservation. The tribe argued the Corps had not adequately consulted with the tribe and had failed to conduct sufficient environmental review of the pipeline's risks to the tribe's water supply and sacred sites.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe intervened as a plaintiff. Dakota Access LLC intervened as a defendant-cross-claimant. The case generated enormous national attention as thousands of water protectors gathered at the Standing Rock camp in fall 2016. While Judge Boasberg initially denied emergency injunctions, the Obama administration halted the easement in December 2016, which the Trump administration then reversed in January 2017. The case remained in active litigation through at least 2021.
AICitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Inc., and individual plaintiffs Jill Phaneuf and Eric Goode filed suit against President Donald J. Trump in his official capacity in the Southern District of New York on January 23, 2017, shortly after his inauguration. The complaint alleged that Trump violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution by accepting payments from foreign and domestic governments through his hotel, restaurant, and other business interests without obtaining Congressional approval.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams, who later recused herself, and the case was reassigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in April 2017 and a second amended complaint in May 2017 adding additional plaintiffs. Trump moved to dismiss on June 9, 2017, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the Emoluments Clauses did not cover commercial transactions. Plaintiffs opposed in August 2017, submitting declarations from hospitality industry experts including chef Thomas Colicchio.
The case was one of several Emoluments Clause lawsuits filed against Trump, raising novel constitutional questions about what types of benefits from foreign governments qualify as emoluments and who has standing to sue a sitting president for such violations.
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
United States
Date Filed
