Where can I read the full April 2024 complaint filed by Katie Johnson against Donald J. Trump?

1. What people claim and why it matters — separating the headline from the docket

The key claim under scrutiny is that Katie Johnson filed a new April 2024 complaint against Donald J. Trump; the assembled analyses instead indicate that the matter widely cited is the April 2016 complaint brought under case number 5:16-cv-00797, filed April 26, 2016. This distinction matters because legal timelines, statutes of limitations, and public understanding of the allegations depend on the filing date; conflating 2016 with 2024 can mislead readers about the immediacy and procedural status of any litigation. Repositories and fact-checking outlets examined here consistently point to the 2016 docket entry as the original source document and note that the complaint text is available as docket Document 1 ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Accurate dating matters for readers and researchers seeking primary texts.

2. Where you can actually read the complaint — free and fee-based routes

The most direct way to read the full complaint is via PACER, the federal judiciary’s electronic case system, which hosts the official docket including Document 1 for case 5:16-cv-00797; PACER requires registration and may charge minimal per-page fees. For a free alternative, CourtListener and Plainsite mirror many federal filings and list the Johnson v. Trump complaint as accessible; CourtListener specifically indexes the case and the complaint ^{[1] [4]}. Secondary reproductions and summaries appear on various news and legal commentary sites, but for primary-source accuracy consult PACER or a reputable mirror like CourtListener/Plainsite rather than relying solely on reposts or snippets that may omit context ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Why some sources mention 2016 and others search for 2024 — origins of confusion

The analyses reveal confusion stems from repeated republication of the 2016 complaint, occasional mislabeling, and fact-check pieces that trace the underlying allegations back to 2016; there is no corroborating source in the set pointing to a newly filed April 2024 complaint. Snopes and other fact-checkers emphasize the historical origin of the allegations in 2016 and warn that republished excerpts or social-media claims can create the false impression of a recent filing ^{[3] [5]}. Legal databases and document-hosting platforms sometimes display rendering or metadata that can be misread as more recent uploads, contributing to misdating; careful checking of docket numbers and filing dates is essential ^{[2] [6]}.

4. How different outlets present the allegations — summaries versus primary documents

News outlets, legal blogs, and aggregators present a mix of verbatim complaint text, curated excerpts, and interpretive summaries; the analyses note that some outlets (e.g., Law360, Daily Kos referenced in a summary) reproduce allegations or quoted statements but may not link to the original complaint, increasing the risk of omission or editorial framing. The safest read is the primary complaint on PACER or CourtListener where the document appears as filed in April 2016, with Document 1 holding the complaint text; secondary coverage should be cross-checked against the docket to verify accuracy and completeness ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Practical next steps for a reader who wants the full text right now

If you want the full complaint immediately, register for PACER and pull Case No. 5:16-cv-00797 (Document 1 filed April 26, 2016) or use CourtListener/Plainsite to access the mirrored PDF without fees; these options are explicitly identified in the compiled analyses. When using secondary sources, compare publication dates and confirm they reference the same docket number and document to avoid mistaking 2016 filings for any alleged 2024 filing. Always cite the docket number and document number when sharing or quoting the complaint to preserve traceability and prevent the spread of misdated claims ^{[2] [1] [4]}.