Lapierre v. Trump

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MAUREEN LAPIERRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, individually and in his
official capacity as President of the United
States of America
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cv-00451-DCN
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiff 	Maureen 	LaPierre’s 	Complaint 	(Dkt. 	2) 	and
Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1). LaPierre filed an Amended
Complaint on September 22, 2025.1 Dkt. 6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must review
LaPierre’s request to determine whether she is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis—
which permits civil litigants to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or to pay the
filing fee over time. Rice v. City of Boise City, 2013 WL 6385657, at *1 (D. Idaho Dec. 6,
2013). The Court must also undertake an initial review of LaPierre’s Complaint to ensure
it meets the minimum required standards. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS LaPierre’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and will allow her to pay the filing fee over time. That said, after a review
1 LaPierre’s Amended Complaint is the operative complaint. See CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, 16 F.4th
1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint” thereby
becoming the “operative pleading” (citation modified)).
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2
of the Amended Complaint, the Court must DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It will,
however, allow LaPierre an opportunity to remedy the shortcomings in her Amended
Complaint.
II. BACKGROUND
LaPierre is suing President Donald J. Trump for alleged violations of the Foreign
and Domestic Emoluments Clauses and other federal ethics rules by, among other things,
accepting a Boeing 747-8 jet from Qatar, continuing to benefit from foreign backed
cryptocurrency ventures, and ongoing emoluments received from Trump-owned entities.
See generally, Dkt. 6, at 2. LaPierre alleges Trump has engaged in a continuous pattern of
violations including enrichment through Mar-a-Lago and cryptocurrency ventures, which
threaten the “integrity of the Executive Branch, places Americans at risk, and occurs
without Congressional consent.” Dkt. 6 at 3. LaPierre seeks to proceed in forma pauperis,
citing her poverty. Dkt. 1.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
“[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or
defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, . . . without prepayment of fees
or security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In order to qualify for in forma pauperis
status, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets he
possesses and indicates that he is unable to pay the fee required. The affidavit is sufficient
if it states that the plaintiff, because of his poverty, cannot “pay or give security for the
costs” and still be able to provide for himself and dependents “with necessities of life.”
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Numours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The affidavit must
“state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”
United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)).
B. Sufficiency of Complaint
The Court is required to screen complaints that are brought by litigants who seek in
forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not
just those filed by prisoners”). The Court must dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint, or any
portion thereof, if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). To state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, a plaintiff’s complaint must include facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for
relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly. 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The plaintiff cannot simply recite the elements of a cause
of action and try to support that recitation with mere conclusory statements. Id. at 678.
During this initial review, courts generally construe pro se pleadings liberally,
giving pro se plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,447
(9th Cir. 2000). Even so, plaintiffs—whether represented or not—have the burden of
articulating their claims clearly and alleging facts sufficient to support review of each
claim. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, if amending the
complaint would remedy the deficiencies, plaintiffs should be notified and provided an
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4
opportunity to amend. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
LaPierre utilized the Administrative Office of the Court’s generic in forma pauperis
form. LaPierre reported her monthly income to be $555 minus her monthly expenses of
$375, which leaves her with $180 in discretionary income each month. Dkt. 1, at 2.
LaPierre claims she has $0 cash and $63.47 in a checking account and $75.02 in a savings
account. Id. at 3. LaPierre claims she lives with her daughter who pays rent and utilities,
and LaPierre is responsible for her own food, gas, and medicine. Id. at 5. On these facts,
LaPierre could not likely pay the standard $400 filing fee all at once without sacrificing
the necessities of life. She could, however, submit a monthly payment in proportion to her
reported 	discretionary 	income 	and 	pay 	the 	filing 	fee 	over 	time. 	Because 	food,
transportation, and medicine are included in her expenses, and her daughter pays rent and
utilities, the Court infers that LaPierre’s remaining funds are truly discretionary: available
to her for entertainment, travel, or recreation.
Thus, the Court finds that $100—the amount LaPierre keeps each month after
providing for her necessities—is an appropriate monthly fee considering her cash flow in
the recent past and her available assets, including her $2,000 car. LaPierre will be required
to pay the $400 filing fee in $100 monthly installments. By delaying the due date of the
payment, the Court can ensure that this fee does not literally or figuratively take LaPierre’s
“last dollar.”
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5
B. Sufficiency of Complaint
LaPierre relies on the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments
Clause of the U.S. Constitution for her cause of action and as the basis for federal
jurisdiction against President Trump. LaPierre’s Complaint alleges, amongst other things,
that President Trump accepted a $400 million Boeing 747-8 aircraft from Qatar and that
this “confers immediate personal benefits through prestige and use, and long-term benefits
through its planned display in his presidential library.” Dkt. 6, at 5. Additionally, LaPierre
alleges President Trump benefits from foreign-linked cryptocurrency ventures such as
World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP meme coin. Id., at 6. LaPierre claims these acts
materially impede her “ability to participate safely and fully in civic and economic life . . .
.” Id., at 3. LaPierre alleges her anxiety disorder and agoraphobia have gotten worse and
that she “experiences sustained distress, feelings of powerlessness, and injustice” because
of President Trump’s alleged actions. Id., at 3–4.
The Court finds LaPierre has not sufficiently established she has Article III standing
to bring her claims. To successfully allege standing, the plaintiff must have suffered an
injury in fact, that is concrete and particularized; actual or imminent, and not conjectural
or hypothetical. Citizens for Resp. and Ethics in Wash. v. Trump 953 F.3d 178, 189 (2d.
Cir. 2019) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560(1992)). A plaintiff
must also show there is a “casual connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of” and the injury should be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the
defendant . . . .” Id. Finally, the plaintiff must show the “injury will be redressed by a
favorable opinion.” Id. As discussed further below, LaPierre has not satisfied the three
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 6
prongs of Article III standing.
1. 	Injury in Fact
LaPierre has failed to show she has suffered an injury in fact. LaPierre claims
President Trump’s actions have caused her to experience “insomnia, anxiety, panic attacks,
and social withdrawal”. Dkt. 6, at 15. But LaPierre does not explain how President Trump’s
actions have directly caused her to experience these symptoms. LaPierre claims her anxiety
disorder and agoraphobia have gotten worse from the “instability and perceived danger
posed by Defendant’s acceptance of unlawful foreign gifts and foreign-backed financial
ventures.” Id., at 3. However, LaPierre has not shown how her alleged worsened mental
health issues are directly caused by President Trump. LaPierre merely states that she
suffered a “concrete and particularized injury as a U.S. citizen” because President Trump
accepted “extraordinary benefits from foreign governments . . . .” Id., at 3. LaPierre claims
she cannot participate safely and fully in civic and economic life because of President
Trump’s actions. However, LaPierre has not shown how President Trump’s actions have
caused her any actual injuries. Her injuries appear to be more conjectural rather than actual
or imminent.
2. 	Causation
Second, LaPierre has not shown how President Trump’s actions have prevented her
from finding a job and have made her mental health issues worse. To satisfy this prong of
the Article III standing test, “allegations must provide more than ‘unadorned speculation’
to ‘connect their injury to the challenged actions.’” Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in
Washington v. Trump, 953 F.3d 178, 191 (2d Cir. 2019), as amended (Mar. 20, 2020), cert.
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 7
granted, judgment vacated, 141 S. Ct. 1262 (2021) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare
Rights Org, 426 U.S. 26, at 44-55 (1976)). Here, LaPierre claims President Trump’s actions
“materially impede Plaintiff’s ability to participate safely and fully in civic and economic
life . . . .” Dkt. 6, at 3. However, LaPierre has only shown a speculated connection between
her allegations against President Trump and her inability to participate in public life.
Additionally, LaPierre has not shown how her alleged worsening mental health is traceable
to President Trump’s actions suggesting, at best, a specious connection.
3. 	Redressability
Third and finally, LaPierre has failed to show how her alleged injuries would be
redressed by a favorable decision. LaPierre has requested, among other things, that
President Trump be ordered to return the $400 million jet to Qatar. However, it is unclear
to the Court how such a favorable decision would stop LaPierre from experiencing anxiety,
panic attacks, social withdrawal, and otherwise enable her to feel safe outside her home.
V. CONCLUSION
The Court is concerned with LaPierre’s allegations. The Court only addressed
standing today as standing is a threshold determination in any lawsuit. The Court also has
questions about jurisdiction,2 presidential immunity, and the sheer implausibility of
LaPierre’s claims. Nevertheless, the Court will allow LaPierre an opportunity to amend her
2 For example, LaPierre recently moved to Washington state. See Dkt. 7. That alone likely means the District
of Idaho no longer has jurisdiction over LaPierre. This is to say nothing of the Court’s jurisdiction over
President Trump.
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 8
Complaint to include those facts, should they exist, to state plausible and appropriate causes
of action. See Jackson, 353 F.3d at 758.
LaPierre has sufficiently proved her indigency, and the Court will allow her to pay
the filing fee over time. Additionally, the Court finds that LaPierre’s Amended Complaint
is deficient and therefore DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LaPierre
may amend her Complaint and refile if she so chooses.
VI. ORDER
1. 	LaPierre’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED. LaPierre need not prepay the fee in full; however, she must pay
$100.00 per month to the Clerk of Court, on or before the last day of each month,
with the first payment due March 1, 2026, until the filing fee is paid in full. Failure,
at any time, to comply with this payment schedule will result in dismissal of this
case without further notice.
2. 	LaPierre’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court grants LaPierre leave to file an Amended Complaint in substantial
compliance with the Court’s analysis above. LaPierre must file her Amended
Complaint within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.
3. 	Failure to submit a Second Amended Complaint within the ordered timeframe will
result in the full dismissal of this case WITH PREJUDICE and without further
notice.
4. 	LaPierre’s “Motion to Expedite Ruling on In Forma Pauperis” (Dkt. 4) is DENIED.
While the Federal Court appreciates LaPierre’s concerns about the timeliness of her
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 9
Application and Complaint, the Federal Court receives hundreds of Applications
and Complaints and screens them as fast as it is able.
5. 	LaPierre’s “Motion to Amend” is GRANTED and the Court will consider her
Amended Complaint.
DATED: February 10, 2026
_________________________
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00451-DCN Document 8 Filed 02/10/26 Page 9 of 9