Aleta Arthur Trauger
How Judge Trauger decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Robust First Amendment enforcement against compelled speech: will strike a statute that forces a private business to post or echo a government-scripted message on a contested social issue, framing it as viewpoint-based compulsion rather than neutral factual disclosure.
“It would do a disservice to the First Amendment to judge the Act for anything other than what it is: a brazen attempt to single out trans-inclusive establishments and force them to parrot a message that they reasonably believe would sow fear and misunderstanding...”
Procedural preferences
Independently reviews Magistrate Judge R&Rs on objection rather than rubber-stamping -- will accept in part and reject in part, granting an MTD only as to the counts that fail.
“the Report and Recommendation ... is ACCEPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART, and the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
Cautions
On qualified immunity at the pleading stage, denies dismissal where the plaintiff states a colorable violation of clearly-established law (e.g. termination-without-cause of a tenured public employee; First Amendment-protected sworn testimony) -- does not grant QI reflexively.
“the court finds that ‘the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law,’ ... as a result of which Battle is not entitled to dismissal of Bailey’s due process claim based on qualified immunity.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 8 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 3Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to reconsider N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to amend N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Conditional certification N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 35) will be granted.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, both parties’ summary judgment motions (Doc. Nos. 37, 40) will be denied.”
“Hoover is not entitled to summary judgment.”
“the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint and those claims are DISMISSED. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Count I of the Complaint, and that count remains pending.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the § 1983 claims against them will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“defendant Airfreight.com’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment Limiting Liability (Doc. No. 92) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment Limiting Liability filed by defendant Total Quality Logistics, LLC (“TQL”) (Doc. No. 99) is likewise GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED as to all claims.”
“the defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and the prior Order excluding Dr. Mehlman-Orozco’s testimony in its entirety (Doc. No. 470) is hereby MODIFIED to permit this expert to testify within the limits set forth herein.”
“the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion will be granted as to the defendant’s liability for violation of the SCA and invasion of privacy (Counts Two and Five) and denied as to Counts One, Eight, and Nine.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiff's Motion to Facilitate Notice of an FLSA Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (Doc. No. 19) will be denied.”
“Faison's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 61) will be granted, and Fox's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 64) will be denied.”
“Faison's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 61) will be granted, and Fox's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 64) will be denied.”
“The Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 35) will be granted, and the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment (Doc. No. 22) will be denied.”
“The Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 35) will be granted, and the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment (Doc. No. 22) will be denied.”
“As set forth herein, the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) will be granted, and this case will be dismissed in its entirety.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 45 days (N = 9).
Senior-most active Nashville district judge ('vital institutional memory', managed a doubled caseload after colleagues left). High-profile civil docket: First Amendment / civil-rights challenges to Tennessee statutes (Bongo v. Lawrence), FCA qui tam (United States v. Macon Hospital), FLSA (Bruce v. RaceTrac), ERISA/benefit-fund, immigration mandamus (Jampany v. Mayorkas), employment, and contract/non-compete. Many 2023-filed cases resolved very fast (voluntary dismissal / settlement / agency action). NOT a grant rate -- caseload composition only.