Aleta Arthur Trauger
How Judge Trauger rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Trauger
Aleta Arthur Trauger is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Trauger received a commission on October 22, 1998.
Judge Trauger's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Trauger, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Do not send chamber copies of filings unless Trauger requests them.
“Judge Trauger does not want chamber copies of filings, unless she requests them.”
Discovery
Arrange a joint telephone conference with Trauger before filing a motion to compel or other discovery motion.
“Judge Trauger requires joint telephone conferences with the Court prior to the filing of motions to compel or other discovery motions.”
Conferences
File a joint proposed initial case management order three business days before Trauger’s initial case management conference.
“Counsel are required to file three business days prior to the initial case management conference a joint proposed initial case management order”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Trauger decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bongo Productions, LLC v. Lawrence, she granted summary judgment against a Tennessee law requiring trans-inclusive businesses to post a state-scripted restroom notice, holding that it compelled a contested message.
“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
In West v. JPMorgan Chase N.A., she accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation in part and rejected it in part after objections, dismissing three counts while allowing one to proceed.
“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.”
In Del Rossi v. Dean, she treated a timely post-judgment motion under Rule 59(e) and denied reopening because the renewed federal claim would still face Younger abstention during a pending state prosecution.
“this court will not reopen this case only to close it again. The plaintiff’s Post-Judgment Motion (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.”
In Meeks, Trauger deferred qualified-immunity dismissal of a public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim when the pleading record could not support the fact-intensive Pickering balance.
“resolution of a qualified immunity defense in a First Amendment retaliation case is best reserved for ‘summary judgment and not dismissal under Rule 12,’”
Cautions
In Doe v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Trauger denied qualified-immunity dismissal of Bailey’s due-process claim after finding the allegations stated a violation of clearly established law.
“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.”
In an indictment challenge, Trauger struck a proposed mandatory minimum when the conspiracy charge did not qualify as a crime of violence under the cited sentencing provision.
“conspiracy to kidnap under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c), as a matter of law, does not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of sentencing under § 3559(f)(2).”
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.”
“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).
The sample includes constitutional and civil-rights challenges to Tennessee laws, False Claims Act, wage-and-hour, employee-benefit, immigration mandamus, employment, contract, and noncompete matters. Many cases filed in 2023 ended quickly through voluntary dismissal, settlement, or agency action.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 14 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, not for Judge Trauger: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,138 | 8.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 576 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 543 | 9.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 28.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,138 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,262 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,090 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 987 | 11 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,007 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 890 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 982 | 10.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Trauger with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Trauger, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Trauger's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace