What civil lawsuits or other legal actions followed Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal?

Checked on January 29, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

After Kyle Rittenhouse’s November 2021 acquittal on state criminal charges, multiple civil actions and related legal moves followed: federal wrongful-death and civil-rights suits brought by the families of people he shot were allowed to proceed against him and local officials, surviving victims filed damages claims and added him as a defendant, Rittenhouse lodged counterclaims and motions to recover seized property, and newer lawsuits by estates continued to be filed into 2023 — creating parallel civil litigation even as criminal liability was foreclosed by the jury verdict [1] [2] [3] [4].

1. Wrongful-death and civil-rights suits that survived early dismissals

John Huber, the father of Anthony Huber (one of the two men killed), filed a federal civil-rights and wrongful-death lawsuit in 2021 alleging that Rittenhouse and Kenosha law enforcement conspired and were negligent, and in February 2023 U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman refused to dismiss that suit — allowing it to proceed against Rittenhouse, named officers and municipal defendants [5] [2] [6].

2. Surviving victim’s lawsuit and counterclaims

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was wounded by Rittenhouse and had filed civil claims earlier, amended or refiled actions that ultimately added Rittenhouse as a named defendant; by April 2023 Rittenhouse had filed a countersuit against Grosskreutz, escalating litigation between the shooter and a survivor of the shootings [3] [7].

3. New estate suit added in 2023 and broad claims against officials

The estate of Joseph Rosenbaum — the other man killed that night — filed a multi-count suit in August 2023 naming Rittenhouse and various officers and officials, asserting wrongful death, deprivation of rights, failure to intervene, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other claims and seeking compensatory relief, further expanding civil exposure beyond the Huber complaint [4] [8].

4. Legal skirmishes over service, evidence and discovery

Rittenhouse challenged service and sought dismissal at various points; courts repeatedly rejected some of those procedural defenses, with judges finding plaintiffs had adequately served Rittenhouse or that claims should proceed to discovery — a stage where plaintiffs aim to probe police conduct, any alleged coordination with armed civilians, and Rittenhouse’s own statements and conduct [9] [2] [10].

5. Rittenhouse’s own legal moves and collateral litigation

Beyond countersuing Grosskreutz, Rittenhouse has sought to recover property seized after his arrest, including the rifle used in the shootings, and has publicly discussed raising funds for defamation suits against media companies — legal maneuvers that reflect both defensive and offensive strategies in the post-acquittal legal landscape [11] [3].

6. Evidence disputes and potential trial implications

Attorneys for plaintiffs have signaled they will pursue discovery of messages and conduct that could be used against Rittenhouse in civil court; media reporting has highlighted that alleged texts and other communications could become exhibits in civil trials even though they were not dispositive in criminal court, underscoring the lower burden of proof and different evidentiary dynamics in civil proceedings [12] [13].

7. Political context, competing narratives and stakes for municipalities

These civil suits sit at the intersection of criminal acquittal, public politics and municipal liability: plaintiffs frame their cases as accountability for what they describe as official failures that enabled harm, while Rittenhouse and some conservative allies cast the litigation as political persecution that threatens self-defense rights; municipalities and police defendants face potential financial and reputational exposure if courts permit claims over tactics and supervision to go to trial [5] [7] [9].

Conclusion

The post-acquittal legal record shows that civil litigation — Huber’s wrongful-death/civil-rights suit allowed to proceed by a federal judge in early 2023, Grosskreutz’s damages suit (and Rittenhouse’s countersuit), the Rosenbaum estate’s 2023 complaint, motions over service and property recovery, and ongoing discovery fights — has been the primary arena for continued adjudication of the Kenosha shootings’ fallout; those civil matters remain active and fact-intensive, and they proceed under different standards and objectives than the criminal trial that ended with acquittal [2] [3] [4].

Want to dive deeper?
What specific legal claims are in the Huber wrongful-death and civil-rights complaint against Kenosha and its officers?
How do civil burdens of proof and defenses (like self-defense) differ from criminal trials in cases like Rittenhouse’s?
What has been the outcome of discovery disputes and evidentiary rulings in the Rittenhouse-related civil cases to date?