The Mueller investigation lawsuits form a long and still-growing tail of litigation that reaches from the day Robert Mueller handed in his report in March 2019 to cases filed in 2026. They include Freedom of Information Act fights over the report’s redactions, a congressional battle for grand jury materials, constitutional challenges to the special counsel’s authority, a dismissed suit filed against Mueller personally, multimillion-dollar tort claims by people the probe investigated, lawsuits over President Trump’s 2025 executive orders punishing law firms that employed Mueller alumni, and new litigation over a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” built on a settlement of Trump’s claims against the Justice Department.
Suits to Pry Loose the Report and Grand Jury Materials
The first wave of litigation targeted the redactions Attorney General William Barr applied before releasing Mueller’s report to the public.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 22, 2019, the same day the report was submitted. The case was consolidated with a separate FOIA suit from journalist Jason Leopold and BuzzFeed News. In March 2020, Judge Reggie B. Walton wrote that “the actions of Attorney General Barr and his representations about the Mueller Report preclude the Court’s acceptance of the validity of the Department’s redactions,” and ordered the government to turn over the full unredacted report for his private review.1Electronic Privacy Information Center. EPIC v. DOJ — The Mueller Report The DOJ later released additional previously withheld material in rounds through 2020 and 2022.
Leopold and BuzzFeed News separately won a 2021 D.C. Circuit ruling that forced DOJ to unredact portions of the report explaining why Mueller declined to charge Donald Trump Jr.2Courthouse News Service. Corsi v. Mueller Dismissal Opinion Leopold also filed five additional FOIA suits for underlying investigative documents — subpoenas, warrants, interview memos — which were consolidated with a CNN suit seeking the same records. A federal judge ordered DOJ to release 500 pages per month starting in late 2019.3Columbia Journalism Review. BuzzFeed, CNN FOIA Lawsuits for Mueller Materials
The House Judiciary Committee pursued a parallel track. After DOJ refused a subpoena for unredacted grand jury material in July 2019, the Committee sued. Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled for the Committee in October 2019, holding that a Senate impeachment trial counted as a “judicial proceeding” under grand jury secrecy rules and that the Committee had shown particularized need.4Washington Post. U.S. Judge Orders Mueller Grand Jury Materials Released The D.C. Circuit affirmed in March 2020, but the Supreme Court stayed the release that May.5SCOTUSblog. Justices Block Release of Secret Mueller Grand Jury Materials By the time the case reached the Supreme Court on the merits, Trump had left office and impeachment was over. In July 2021 the Court vacated the lower rulings as moot. The Committee never got the materials.6Constitutional Accountability Center. In Re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary
Challenges to the Special Counsel’s Authority
The legal foundation of Mueller’s appointment has been attacked from the start. Early challenges failed. In 2018, Judge Dabney Friedrich denied a motion to dismiss an indictment on Appointments Clause grounds, and the D.C. Circuit upheld grand jury subpoenas issued under Mueller’s authority against a witness who disputed the appointment.7Just Security. Constitutional Challenge to Robert Mueller’s Appointment
The theory succeeded years later in a different case. On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents indictment against Donald Trump, holding that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause because the office was not created “pursuant to law.” Cannon relied heavily on a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision.8Yale Journal on Regulation. Remedying Appointment Clause Violations: Special Counsels, Part I
Smith appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing the appointment was constitutional under decades of precedent, four congressional statutes, and more than 150 years of special counsel appointments. After the 2024 election, the government dropped the appeal as to Trump but kept it alive against co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.9Just Security. Cannon Special Counsel Report A group of state attorneys general filed an amicus brief backing Cannon’s reasoning and expressly citing the Mueller investigation as an example of improperly insulated special counsel power.10Iowa Attorney General. Amici States Brief, USCA11 Case No. 24-12311 Cannon’s reasoning would apply equally to Mueller, whose appointment rested on the same regulatory framework.
Tort Claims by Those the Probe Investigated
Several figures caught up in the investigation have sued or filed administrative claims seeking damages from the government.
Trump’s $230 Million Claim
Donald Trump has filed roughly $230 million in administrative tort claims against the Department of Justice. One, filed in 2023, seeks damages tied to the Russia investigation and the special counsel probe. A second, filed in 2024, alleges malicious prosecution and privacy violations stemming from the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. The total includes about $15 million in legal costs and $100 million in requested punitive damages. As of late 2025, the claims were under consideration, with settlement authority held by senior DOJ officials who had previously served as defense lawyers for Trump or his associates.11CNN. Trump DOJ Request $230 Million Explained
Flynn’s Settlement
Michael Flynn sued the government for $50 million, alleging the FBI tried to entrap him in the early Trump administration. On March 25, 2026, lawyers for Flynn and DOJ filed a brief stating they had reached a settlement to drop the case. A source familiar with the agreement told reporters Flynn would receive “more than $1 million.”12CNN. Michael Flynn Settlement With Justice Department
Corsi’s Suit Against Mueller Personally
In December 2018, conservative writer and former InfoWars Washington bureau chief Jerome Corsi sued Mueller, DOJ, the FBI, CIA, and NSA for $350 million. Corsi alleged that Mueller’s office had pressured him to commit perjury to falsely tie Roger Stone to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, had illegally leaked grand jury information to the press, and had conducted unconstitutional surveillance of his communications.13NBC News. Roger Stone Associate Jerome Corsi Sues Mueller
The case was dismissed in its entirety on October 31, 2019. The court found Corsi’s attorneys had failed to properly serve Mueller and that Corsi lacked standing on his surveillance claims, which the judge called “speculative” under the Supreme Court’s standard in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA. Corsi also failed to show any leaks had originated from Mueller’s office. The court denied leave to amend.14Courthouse News Service. Conspiracy Theorist Loses Case Against Robert Mueller
Executive Orders Against Mueller-Connected Law Firms
In March 2025, President Trump signed executive orders targeting several prominent law firms, two of them for employing Mueller-team alumni. The order against WilmerHale, signed March 27, 2025, cited the firm for “welcoming” Mueller and colleagues Aaron Zebley and James Quarles after they led “one of the most partisan investigations in American history.” It directed agencies to suspend security clearances for WilmerHale employees, terminate government contracts with the firm, bar its employees from federal buildings, and restrict federal workers from engaging with the firm’s attorneys.15White House. Addressing Risks From WilmerHale
A parallel order targeted Jenner & Block over its employment of Andrew Weissmann, a lead prosecutor on Mueller’s team.16White House. Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block A third order, issued earlier in March 2025, targeted Perkins Coie over its representation of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.
All three firms sued, and all three won at the district court. Judge Beryl Howell declared the Perkins Coie order unconstitutional on May 2, 2025, writing in a 102-page opinion that “no American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm.”17PBS NewsHour. Judge Blocks Trump Executive Order Targeting Elite Law Firm Perkins Coie Judge John D. Bates struck down the Jenner & Block order on May 23, finding it tried “to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like.”18Washington Post. Trump Jenner & Block Order Struck Down Judge Richard Leon invalidated the WilmerHale order on May 27, 2025, in a 73-page ruling, writing that “the cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting.”19The Guardian. Trump Law Firm WilmerHale Executive Order Struck Down
The government appealed all three. As of early 2026, the firms had filed response briefs, and oral argument before the appellate court was scheduled for May 14, 2026.20ACLU of the District of Columbia. Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice
Lawsuits Over the $1.776 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund
In May 2026, the Department of Justice under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” created through a settlement of tort claims Trump had filed against DOJ, the IRS, and other agencies. Five commissioners appointed by the Attorney General oversee the fund, which is authorized to evaluate and pay claims related to government “weaponization” and must wind up all activity by December 15, 2028.21Public Citizen. Gill v. Department of Justice
On May 28, 2026, Allison Gill — host of the “Mueller, She Wrote” podcast and a former Department of Veterans Affairs health specialist — sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to block the fund. Represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group and Singleton Schreiber, Gill argues the fund is a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act and was created without the required notice-and-comment process. The complaint also raises constitutional questions about whether the fund’s commissioners require Senate confirmation and warns that the fund could be used to compensate people involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.22Bloomberg Law. Mueller, She Wrote Podcaster Sues DOJ Over $1.8 Billion Fund Gill claims standing based on her 2019 termination from the VA, which she contends was retaliation for her criticism of Trump and the launch of her podcast. Hers is one of at least three challenges to the fund; others have been filed by January 6 police responders and a coalition that includes Common Cause.21Public Citizen. Gill v. Department of Justice
How Presidential Immunity Reshaped the Picture
Separate from any single lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision in Trump v. United States changed what prosecutors could do with Mueller’s obstruction findings. The Court ruled that a former president has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions within the “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. It specifically held that Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for discussions with Justice Department officials, because those implicate the president’s exclusive authority over the executive branch’s investigative functions.23Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. United States, No. 23-939 Several of the obstruction episodes Mueller documented involved exactly those kinds of interactions with DOJ and FBI officials, so any future prosecution built on them would now face constitutional barriers that did not exist when the report was written.