Updated: August 31, 2026
What’s the latest on the lawsuit?
Garth Brooks is back on the road and selling out multiple nights on each stop of his Blame It All On My Roots tour, with his popularity clearly unaffected by the bombshell lawsuit filed back in 2024 accusing the country music superstar of sexual assault.
The lawsuit was filed by a former hairdresser who identified herself only as Jane Roe, and alleged that the country music superstar raped and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, including once while the two were in Los Angeles for a performance. She also claims that Garth expressed his interest in having a threesome with the woman and his wife, Trisha Yearwood, as well as several other disturbing allegations.
But it seems like after the initial uproar over the shocking lawsuit, things have settled down and we haven’t heard much about it. Garth announced a new tour earlier this year, and has continuously been forced to add additional dates due to overwhelming demand.
That’s naturally led to many comments online wondering the status of the case or what’s going on, so I figured I would do my best to answer those questions and give an update on the status of the case. (For those who don’t know, I also happen to be a lawyer, so I reviewed the court documents to see what was going on).
First, a little bit of backstory – and also an apology in advance, because this is going to contain quite a bit of “legalese,” but I’ll do my best to break it down.
A few days before Jane Doe filed her lawsuit in California state court, Garth had also filed a lawsuit in Mississippi against his accuser in an attempt to keep her from filing her lawsuit against him. This lawsuit was also filed anonymously, so we didn’t hear about it until after she filed her lawsuit in California and it became clear that Garth was the unnamed country artist in the Mississippi case.
That’s an important part of this whole saga to keep in mind as we go through the case: The California lawsuit is the lawsuit filed against Garth accusing him of sexual assault. The Mississippi lawsuit is the one filed BY Garth to try to keep his accuser from filing her lawsuit.
Well after the lawsuit was filed against Garth in California, he filed an amended complaint in Mississippi which included the name of his accuser, claiming that she gave up the right to remain anonymous when she included identifying information in her complaint against him.
He also filed to have the California case moved from state court to federal court, a strategic move on his part because he then filed a motion to dismiss the case in California and force his accuser to re-file her case as a counterclaim to the lawsuit that was already pending in Mississippi.
Garth alleged that the California case was what’s known as a “compulsory counterclaim,” meaning that it arises out of the same set of facts as a lawsuit that has already been filed, and therefore can’t be filed as a separate lawsuit but must be brought up in the case that’s already ongoing – in this case, the case that he filed in Mississippi.
The alleged victim, however, claims that Garth only filed the Mississippi case in an attempt to beat her to the courthouse and force her to file her complaint in Mississippi, which he may see as a more favorable court for his case. She argues that because the Mississippi lawsuit was Garth’s attempt at “forum shopping,” her case in California should be allowed to proceed.
At the same time, the accuser also filed a motion to dismiss the case in Mississippi.
The judge in the California case denied Garth’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning that he can re-file that motion at another time. And he also ordered that the California case (remember, this is the case that was filed by the accuser against Garth) be stayed – basically meaning that nothing will happen in the case – until the Mississippi judge rules on the accuser’s motion to dismiss in Garth’s case that he filed against her.
Meanwhile in the Mississippi case, the judge previously ordered most of the documents to be sealed from public view after Garth’s accuser asked the court to sanction the country singer for publicly identifying her in the lawsuit. She also asked for sanctions against the singer for publicly revealing her name.
Last September, however, Judge Henry Wingate denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym and also denied her request for sanctions against Garth – which would pave the way for the singer to publicly name his accuser in court documents.
In his order, the judge ruled that the woman had already been publicly identified, both when Garth used her name in court filings and online through publicly available information, and that basically, the cat was already out of the bag. The court also pointed out that the woman was not in favor of sealing the record in the case until her identity became public:
“Ms. Roe was more concerned with airing Mr. Doe’s identity to the public than preserving her own confidentiality.”
The court also pointed out that when he filed his case in Mississippi, Garth had also filed a motion asking permission for BOTH of the parties to remain anonymous – but before the judge could rule on that motion, the woman filed her California lawsuit and named Garth as the defendant, outing him publicly and rendering the issue moot. It was only then that Garth named her in the Mississippi suit, which he had not done to that point.
Obviously the woman wasn’t happy with the court’s ruling, and has since filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime though, much of the case record has been unsealed, which would seem to indicate that the court isn’t in favor of keeping the record hidden from the public.
Garth had asked the court to expedite the appeal, citing the need to get this case moving. The country star argued that, given the age of these allegations, people’s memories would continue to fade. He also cited the death of his longtime publicist, Nancy Seltzer, who he claimed was a witness in the case, as proof that the evidence in the case beneficial to him was disappearing because the case is taking so long.
As Garth pointed out in his legal filings, the case has been pending for nearly 20 months, but has been “stayed,” meaning a court ordered a halt to the proceedings, for nearly 80% of that time.
But the court was unpersuaded. A three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Garth’s motion to expedite the appeal, meaning that it’s still going to be a while before the issue of proceeding under a pseudonym is official put to rest.
Both sides are filed their respective briefs to argue their positions on the appeal, which keep in mind is ONLY over whether she is allowed to proceed under the name “Jane Roe” and has nothing to do with whether the allegations against Garth are true.
The court allowed the woman to redact their filings to protect personal information – but apparently when attorneys filed the woman’s brief and accompanying exhibits, they inadvertently failed to redact some personally identifying information.
A motion, which has been reviewed by Whiskey Riff, was filed by her attorneys requesting the opportunity to correct their mistake:
“Unfortunately, counsel for Appellant inadvertently failed to redact personally identifying information from the record excerpts that were filed in conjunction with her opening brief.”
Well needless to say, Garth’s legal team took notice of the mistake, and quickly pointed it out in their own brief while arguing that her failure to protect her own identity should be a reason for the court to deny her request to remain anonymous:
“Ms. Roe revealed her own identity in the very appeal where she seeks anonymity. On May 20, 2026, Ms. Roe filed Record Excerpts containing her and Mr. Doe’s full legal names.”
He also pointed out the irony in the fact that she failed to protect her own anonymity in an appeal over whether or not she can remain anonymous:
“The Record Excerpts have remained publicly available on this Court’s docket for more than a month, and Ms. Roe has taken no steps to seal or redact them.
Even if inadvertent, Mr. Doe respectfully submits that this manifest anonymity waiver—in an appeal over anonymity and in violation of the sealing order Ms. Roe alone requested—is itself grounds to reject Ms. Roe’s appeal.”
(Whiskey Riff has chosen to wait for the court’s ruling on the issue before using her name publicly).
Both sides have made their arguments and submitted their briefs, so now they’re simply waiting on a ruling from the court before anything else happens in the case.
It’s unlikely that anything will happen in the Mississippi case until the appeals court rules on the issue of whether the woman can be publicly named, and the California case filed by the accuser against Garth is still on hold pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.
Basically, to sum it all up: Things are kind of at a standstill and it’s still going to take a while to resolve.
This isn’t really surprising, given the length of litigation in federal courts. In fact, Garth even warned his fans that they expected the situation to drag on for up to two years (it’s going to be much longer than that), but he issued a statement shortly after the lawsuit was filed indicating that he intends to fight to clear his name:
“For the last two months, I have been hassled to no end with threats, lies, and tragic tales of what my future would be if I did not write a check for many millions of dollars. It has been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.
Hush money, no matter how much or how little, is still hush money. In my mind, that means I am admitting to behavior I am incapable of – ugly acts no human should ever do to another.
We filed suit against this person nearly a month ago to speak out against extortion and defamation of character. We filed it anonymously for the sake of families on both sides.
I want to play music tonight. I want to continue our good deeds going forward. It breaks my heart these wonderful things are in question now. I trust the system, I do not fear the truth, and I am not the man they have painted me to be.”
Of course if anything happens we’ll be sure to bring you updates. But for now, the reason you haven’t heard anything lately is…well, there’s not much to report.
