Updated March 31, 2026
What’s the latest on the lawsuit?
About a year and a half ago, the country music world was rocked by a bombshell lawsuit accusing superstar Garth Brooks 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. 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.
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.
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, 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.
