Have there been any rulings or motions decided in Katie Johnson’s case against Trump since mid-2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Court records and contemporary reporting show no published rulings or motions in the Katie Johnson (aka Jane Doe) lawsuit against Donald Trump after mid‑2025; the federal civil case was dismissed in 2016 and the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and available docket snapshots and news summaries through late 2025 continue to reflect that posture [1] [2] [3].
1. What the record says: the case was dismissed and later withdrawn
The anonymous plaintiff who used the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” filed in federal court in 2016 alleging sexual abuse by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein; a judge dismissed the complaint in May 2016 for failing to state a federal claim, and contemporary reporting says the suit was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff’s attorneys [2] [3] [4]. Court summaries archived on docket sites and explanatory write‑ups consistently describe the matter as terminated in 2016 rather than an ongoing active federal prosecution [1] [5].
2. Docket snapshots through 2025: no new post‑mid‑2025 rulings shown
Public docket services and the Federal Judicial Center’s IDB entries referenced in search results show case metadata and document lists but do not display any new substantive rulings or motions decided after mid‑2025; the archived CourtListener and FJC/IDB pages reflect the original 2016 filings and termination entries without later decisions reported in those sources [1] [5] [6].
3. Media summaries continue to treat the matter as a closed or withdrawn 2016 case
News outlets that have revisited the Johnson allegations—Newsweek, PBS and other recaps—trace the narrative back to the 2016 filing, note the judge’s dismissal and the plaintiff’s withdrawal, and do not report fresh judicial activity on the federal docket in 2025 in the sources provided [2] [4]. These summaries imply that, while the underlying allegations have recirculated online in 2025, they did so without accompanying new rulings from the federal court record cited here [2].
4. Conflicting or sensational online claims exist; court documents do exist but not new rulings
Several articles and social posts have republished parts of the 2016 filings or a video tied to the pseudonymous plaintiff; some social posts amassed millions of views in 2025, prompting news outlets to fact‑check the provenance of the materials. Reporting notes that the documents being shared online often originate from the earlier 2016 lawsuit rather than from a revived or newly litigated matter [2] [7]. The sources presented do not show any judge issuing new substantive rulings in 2025 to support claims of a revived case.
5. What the sources do not say — and why that matters
Available sources do not mention any new post‑mid‑2025 motions decided on the federal docket in Katie Johnson v. Trump; they also do not provide transcripts or orders indicating a re‑opening of the federal civil case [1] [5]. That absence means assertions of late‑2025 judicial action should be treated skeptically unless supported by court filings or official docket entries not contained in these sources.
6. How to verify beyond these sources
To confirm whether any rulings or motions were decided after mid‑2025, consult the official PACER docket for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump (C.D. Cal., case no. 5:16‑cv‑00797) or updated filings on CourtListener/archival sites; the search results here point to those repositories but show no new rulings in the materials surfaced [1] [6]. News organizations in 2025 that re‑reported the allegations relied on the original 2016 filings and the fact of dismissal/withdrawal [2] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the search results you provided and cites them directly; if a late‑2025 court filing or decision exists but is not present in these sources, it is not reflected here [1] [5].