Tincher v. Noem
Susan Tincher, et al., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); et al.; in their official capacities
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-04669
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
Tincher v. Noem: Judge Menendez denied the cities’, county office’s, and Minnesota’s request to file an amicus brief.
The City of Minneapolis, the City of Saint Paul, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, and the State of Minnesota were denied permission to file their proposed joint amicus brief, which the court said it would not consider.
What happened
In Susan Tincher v. Kristi Noem, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, and Minnesota asked to file a joint brief supporting their views in the case.
The court explained that district judges have broad discretion over whether to allow such briefs and may consider guidance from an appellate-court rule. The court concluded that allowing the brief could require the judge to step aside and force the case to be reassigned before a hearing.
Judge Katherine Menendez denied the request for permission to file the brief. The court said it would not consider the proposed brief or its supporting declarations.
The detailed version
- Tincher v. Noem · No. 0:25-cv-04669
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 2, 2026
Background
The City of Minneapolis, the City of Saint Paul, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, and the State of Minnesota—the “Moving Parties”—asked for permission to file a joint amicus brief in the case. An amicus brief is a filing by someone who is not a party but seeks to provide information or arguments to the court. The request was filed as docket entry 42.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that federal district courts do not have a specific procedural rule governing amicus briefs. Courts in the Eighth Circuit nevertheless treat the decision to allow or deny such a filing as a matter within the district court’s broad discretion. District courts also often look to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 for guidance. That rule allows a court to prohibit an amicus filing that would result in a judge’s disqualification.
The court decided that denying the request was preferable to allowing the filing, having the undersigned judge recuse herself, and requiring reassignment of the expedited and complex case shortly before the hearing. The court stated that it would not consider the proposed brief or its supporting declarations in any way.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez denied the Moving Parties’ motion for leave to file an amicus brief. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.