Judge Refuses to Toss Out Lawsuit Against Trump Over Isaac Hayes Song

A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump must face a lawsuit from the estate of soul music legend Isaac Hayes, after his legal team tried — and failed — to get the case thrown out. At the heart of the dispute is the iconic 1966 song “Hold On, I’m Coming,” which the Hayes estate says Trump’s campaign used without permission at rallies.

The Song That Sparked a Legal Fight

The lawsuit, filed by Isaac Hayes III on behalf of his father’s estate, accuses Trump and his campaign of repeatedly playing “Hold On, I’m Coming” at various political events — more than 100 times, according to court documents. The track, co-written by Hayes and fellow Memphis songwriter David Porter, was made famous by the soul duo Sam & Dave and remains a classic.

The estate says the Trump campaign never got the proper license to use the song, which is protected under copyright law. Hayes’ son has made it clear that the use of his father’s music in this context goes against the values and intentions behind the work.

Judge Says Case Can Move Forward

On April 2, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. ruled that the case should not be dismissed, rejecting arguments made by Trump’s attorneys. In his decision, Judge Thrash said the estate had done enough to show that it owns the rights to the song and that Trump could be held directly responsible for the alleged copyright violations.

He also dismissed claims that the estate hadn’t made a strong enough case for damages or that the complaint was too vague. While the judge pointed out a few flaws in how the original complaint was written, he ultimately ruled that the lawsuit deserved to be heard in court.

Isaac Hayes III Responds: ‘We Move Forward’

After the ruling, Isaac Hayes III took to social media to share his reaction.

“Great morning in Federal Court,” he wrote. “Grateful to the Court for denying the motion to dismiss filed by Donald Trump, Donald Trump for President, and Turning Point USA in our copyright case. We move forward.”

The Hayes estate had already scored a win in late 2024 when the judge issued a preliminary injunction telling the Trump campaign to stop playing the song at rallies. But the lawsuit claims the campaign continued to use the track anyway — which is one reason why they’re now asking the court for damages and a permanent injunction.

Bigger Than Just One Song

This isn’t the first time Trump has gotten into hot water over music at his events. Over the years, artists like Pharrell Williams, Neil Young, Adele, and the estates of Tom Petty and Prince have all pushed back against his use of their songs during political rallies. For the artists, it’s not just about legal rights — it’s about controlling how their work is used and what messages it’s associated with.

The Hayes lawsuit underscores how serious these cases can become when political campaigns use music without permission. It also highlights a growing trend of musicians and their estates taking a firm stand against what they see as misuse of their art.

What’s Next in the Case?

Now that the motion to dismiss has been denied, the case is expected to move into the discovery phase. That means both sides will gather evidence, potentially leading to a trial unless they settle beforehand.

If the case goes to court, it could have wider implications for how music is used in political spaces — and what responsibilities campaigns have when it comes to getting the proper licenses.

For now, the Hayes estate is moving ahead with its legal challenge, hoping to send a message about protecting creative work and honoring the legacy of one of soul music’s most influential figures.