Who is the appellant and who is the appellee in Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump appeal?

1. Who is claiming what — a direct reading of the party listings that settles the basic question

Court-facing party inventories and case summaries list Katie Johnson as the plaintiff and Donald J. Trump as the defendant, which in an appeal context translates to Johnson being the appellant and Trump the appellee. The CourtListener party roster for the case number 5:16-cv-00797 explicitly names Katie Johnson as the plaintiff and Donald J. Trump as the defendant, supporting the identification of Johnson as appellant and Trump as appellee ^[1]. Independent descriptions of the complaint reinforce that Johnson (sometimes filing under the pseudonym Jane Doe) is the initiating party against Trump (and Jeffrey Epstein in related allegations), which is consistent with the standard appellate labeling where the original plaintiff pursuing review is the appellant ^[2]. This direct mapping from pleadings to appellate roles is the most straightforward interpretation of the available records.

2. Why other sources create noise — inconsistent relevance and different cases muddy the waters

Several items in the provided corpus do not contribute clear, direct information about the appellant-appellee labels or instead refer to different matters, which can create confusion. Two listed analyses explicitly state that their sources “do not contain relevant information” or that they discuss a different Johnson case (Alva Johnson) rather than Katie Johnson, demonstrating how similarly named litigants and disparate docket entries can be conflated when compiling summaries ^{[3] [4]}. One summary notes that a court document pertains to Alva Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, which is a distinct case and therefore should not be used to determine party roles in Katie Johnson’s appeal ^[4]. The presence of duplicate or tangential entries alongside the core CourtListener and Jane Doe filings explains why some aggregations might hedge or deliver inconsistent statements despite the underlying party listings being clear.

3. How the contemporaneous filings corroborate the appellant/appellee identification

The case filing identified as “Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein” describes Katie Johnson (Jane Doe) as the complainant bringing claims against Trump and Epstein, which confirms her role as the initiating party and therefore the appellant on appeal ^[2]. The CourtListener parties page for 5:16-cv-00797 provides a parallel, docket-based confirmation that Katie Johnson is the plaintiff and Donald J. Trump the defendant, which directly supports the same conclusion ^[1]. Both documents converge on the same party alignment, and because appellate nomenclature follows the original plaintiff/defendant designations unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the filings themselves act as primary evidence that Johnson is appellant and Trump appellee ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Dates, publication context, and why timing matters for interpreting sources

The party listings and the Jane Doe complaint summaries cited include publication or filing dates in 2016 through 2025 ranges for the referenced materials, and the CourtListener entry used in the analysis is timestamped with a 2025 metadata entry, indicating recent verification of party roles ^{[1] [2]}. Conversely, other materials that were either labeled non-relevant or noted as different cases carry older or mismatched dates, which underscores that newer docket metadata and complaint descriptions are the most reliable pointers to current appellant/appellee designations ^{[3] [4]}. Because appellate posture can change if parties amend or if cases are consolidated, relying on the most recent docket listings and complaint captions is essential; the available recent sources consistently identify Johnson as the appellant and Trump as the appellee ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Bottom line and practical takeaway for readers needing to cite the appeal record

The authoritative reading of the case caption and complaint records shows Katie Johnson (Jane Doe) as the appellant and Donald J. Trump as the appellee, and that conclusion is directly supported by the CourtListener party listing and the complaint narrative in the compiled sources ^{[1] [2]}. Beware of similarly named filings (for example, Alva Johnson) and undated or irrelevant extracts that can lead to mislabeling; when preparing citations or referencing the appeal, rely on the specific docket number 5:16-cv-00797 and the contemporaneous party roster to avoid conflating distinct matters ^{[1] [4]}. If you need a precise citation line for briefs or filings, use the case caption from the docket and the complaint captions as they appear in the CourtListener and complaint documents cited above ^{[1] [2]}.