A sexual-assault case at Cornell University that had remained unresolved in the criminal system for nearly two years has suddenly returned to the spotlight.

Prosecutors in Tompkins County, New York, have reopened an investigation into allegations that a former Cornell student was drugged and sexually assaulted by members of the Chi Phi fraternity at the university’s Ithaca campus in October 2024.

The renewed investigation follows a civil lawsuit filed by the former student, identified as Jane Doe, on September 14, 2026. The lawsuit names Cornell University, Chi Phi-related organizations, and seven current or former fraternity members as defendants.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and the seven men have not been criminally charged in connection with the 2024 incident.

The case has now taken a new turn because Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says prosecutors want to reassess whether additional evidence has emerged that could justify criminal charges.

What allegedly happened at Cornell in 2024?

According to the civil complaint, the alleged incident occurred on October 19, 2024, after the woman, then 20 and a Cornell student, had spent the evening drinking at social events in Ithaca.

The lawsuit says she eventually went to the Chi Phi fraternity house to meet a friend. She alleges that two fraternity members pressured her to consume a substance they identified as ketamine, while she was already intoxicated.

The complaint alleges that she was subsequently sexually assaulted and that additional Chi Phi members became involved.

The lawsuit further alleges that a message was sent to a Snapchat group associated with Chi Phi members inviting others upstairs while the woman was at the house. According to the filing, several men then entered the room.

The complaint says the alleged assault continued for hours and that the woman eventually became incapacitated and later regained consciousness.

These are allegations contained in a civil lawsuit. They remain contested and have not been established as facts by a criminal conviction or civil judgment.

Who are the seven fraternity members named in the lawsuit?

The seven men named as defendants in the civil complaint are

Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris, and Scott Kretzschmar.

The lawsuit also names Cornell University, Chi Phi organizations, and several other entities and individuals, including sorority organizations and a local bar.

The legal claims against the different defendants vary. The seven student defendants face allegations including sexual assault, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, while Cornell faces claims including negligence and breach of contract.

The inclusion of seven men in the lawsuit does not mean all seven have been accused of identical conduct, and it does not establish their legal responsibility.

Why was the case not prosecuted in 2024?

This is the central question behind the reopening.

Jane Doe reported the incident to Cornell University Police on November 8, 2024. According to the district attorney, prosecutors did not bring criminal charges after reviewing the police investigation.

Van Houten has now told ABC News that the account contained in the 2026 civil lawsuit is “dramatically different” from the statement the woman gave police in 2024.

The district attorney said the earlier statement did not allege that she had been unknowingly drugged, forced into sexual activity, or physically helpless or unconscious during the time at the fraternity house.

Van Houten also said his office relied on the Cornell Police investigation and did not independently investigate the allegations in 2024.

That earlier assessment is now being revisited.

What prompted prosecutors to reopen the investigation?

The new civil lawsuit appears to have changed the situation.

Van Houten said prosecutors want to determine whether they now have evidence that was unavailable or not previously considered in November 2024.

He told ABC News that his office intends to present the case to a Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe’s cooperation.

That does not mean charges have already been filed.

A grand jury presentation is part of the process prosecutors can use to seek an indictment when they believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. At this stage, the district attorney is saying only that his office is reassessing the evidence and considering whether criminal conduct can be established.

Jane Doe’s attorney disputes the prosecutor’s account

The reopening has also exposed a sharp disagreement over what happened during the original investigation.

Thomas P. Giuffra, the attorney representing Jane Doe, disputed Van Houten’s description of her initial statement to Cornell police.

Giuffra argued that the investigation did not include an appropriate follow-up interview with someone specially trained to handle sexual-abuse cases.

He said the woman should have been interviewed by a specially trained detective or prosecutor and argued that this did not happen.

Giuffra also said prosecutors were provided with a group-chat message that he considers an important piece of evidence in the case.

Van Houten, however, told ABC News that the group chat included in the later civil complaint was not provided to his office in 2024.

The disagreement over what evidence investigators received and how the original statement was handled is now likely to become an important part of the renewed investigation.

What did Cornell University do after the allegations?

Cornell says it responded separately through its own disciplinary and civil-rights procedures.

The university said its Office of Civil Rights and Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards investigated and adjudicated the allegations in accordance with university policies.

Cornell has also confirmed that the Xi chapter of Chi Phi remains barred from campus.

However, the university says federal privacy laws prevent it from publicly disclosing detailed information about individual students or their disciplinary outcomes.

That means some of the claims circulating about specific sanctions cannot be independently confirmed from Cornell’s public statement.

Cornell said that violations of university policies can result in sanctions including suspension or expulsion and that it would address the matter in detail through the legal process.

What disciplinary action was reportedly taken?

According to the civil complaint, temporary suspensions were issued against the seven student defendants after the November 2024 report.

The lawsuit further alleges that the students were offered an opportunity to mitigate their conduct through written essays.

The complaint says Cornell later began a Title IX investigation after Jane Doe filed a formal complaint in January 2025.

Cornell has not publicly confirmed the individual disciplinary outcomes described in the lawsuit, citing student privacy protections.

The university has confirmed, however, that its investigation has concluded and that the Chi Phi Xi chapter remains barred from campus.

Cornell launched a broader sexual-assault task force

The controversy did not remain limited to the individual case.

Cornell says it launched a Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault in spring 2025. The group issued a report in March 2026 containing recommendations aimed at strengthening the university’s response to sexual assault and related misconduct.

The recommendations included improving communication with students, strengthening prevention and accountability resources, expanding physical safety measures and developing additional educational programming.

Cornell said some of those recommendations have already been implemented, while others remain under development.

The defendants deny the allegations

The civil lawsuit has not gone unanswered.

Attorney Jeremy Saland, who represents Scott Kretzschmar, has strongly disputed the allegations against his client. Saland said the defense possesses documents, statements and scientific evidence that it says contradict the claims in the complaint.

Scott Norris, another defendant, has also denied participating in sexual activity or drug use in connection with the allegations.

Norris acknowledged sending a Snapchat message referenced in the complaint but said he did not participate in the alleged sexual activity or drug use.

The other student defendants had not immediately provided responses to The Cornell Daily Sun when it published its September report.

Those denials are significant because the renewed criminal investigation will ultimately turn on evidence rather than the allegations alone.

What happens next?

The next major development could be a presentation of the case to a Tompkins County grand jury.

Van Houten has said prosecutors intend to work with Jane Doe as they reassess the evidence. The stated purpose is to determine whether information now available could support a finding that criminal conduct occurred.

That leaves the case at a preliminary stage.

No criminal charges have been announced against the seven men, and reopening the investigation does not establish that the allegations are true.

At the same time, the decision to revisit the case means prosecutors are no longer relying solely on the conclusion reached after the 2024 investigation. They are examining whether the civil complaint, additional evidence or a fuller account from the alleged victim changes their earlier assessment.

Why this Cornell case is back in the national spotlight

The case has drawn renewed attention not simply because of the underlying allegations, but because of the gap between the 2024 police account described by the district attorney and the detailed allegations contained in the 2026 civil lawsuit.

The two sides now disagree over crucial questions: what the woman told investigators, what evidence police received, how extensively the allegations were followed up and whether additional information can now alter the criminal assessment.

That is why the reopening matters.

The civil lawsuit and the criminal investigation are separate proceedings, with different standards and potential outcomes. The civil case seeks financial damages and alleges liability by multiple parties. The criminal investigation is focused on whether prosecutors can establish criminal conduct sufficient to pursue charges.

For now, the facts established by a court remain limited.

What is clear is that an incident first investigated in 2024 is once again before prosecutors, with a grand-jury presentation under consideration and the possibility of criminal charges being reassessed.

The next chapter will depend on what investigators find.