Doxsey v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Susan Tincher, et al., on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated
individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS); et al.; in
their official capacities;
Defendants.
No. 25-cv-4669 (KMM/DTS)
ORDER
The City of Minneapolis, the City of Saint Paul, the Hennepin County Attorney’s
Office, and the State of Minnesota (“Moving Parties”) seek leave to file a joint
memorandum of amicus curiae in the above-entitled matter. (Dkt. 42.) There is no
specific procedural rule governing the submission of amicus briefs in the federal district
courts. However, district courts in this Circuit consider the decision whether to grant or
deny leave to be within their broad discretion. AbbVie Inc. v. Hilgers, No. 4:25CV3089,
2025 WL 1939101, at *1 (D. Neb. July 14, 2025) (“Whether to allow amicus curiae to
file a brief regarding a pending motion is within the broad discretion of the district
court.”); Pavek v. Simon, No. 19-cv-3000 (SRN/DTS), 2020 WL 1467008, at *2 (D.
Minn. Mar. 26, 2020). And courts making that determination often look to the standards
established by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. United States ex rel. Johnson v.
Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC, No. 08-CV-1194 (DWF/HB), 2016 WL
CASE 0:25-cv-04669-KMM-DTS Doc. 45 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
11031222, at *2 (D. Minn. June 1, 2016) (explaining that “district courts commonly refer
to Rule 29 for guidance” (quoting U.S. ex rel. Gudur v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, 512 F.
Supp. 2d 920, 927 (S.D. Tex. 2007)).
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, a court “may prohibit the filing of
. . . an amicus brief that would result in a judge’s disqualification.” Fed. R. App. P.
29(a)(2). Therefore, the Court denies the Moving Parties’ request for leave to file the joint
amicus brief. Cf. Ligon v. City of New York, 736 F.3d 166, 169 n.5 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We do
observe, however, that, pursuant to Local Rule 29.1(a), we ‘ordinarily will deny leave to
file an amicus brief when, by reason of a relationship between a judge assigned to hear
the proceeding and the amicus curiae or its counsel, the filing of the brief might cause the
recusal of the judge.’”). Denying the Moving Parties’ request is preferable to allowing the
filing of the brief, having the undersigned recuse herself from the litigation, and having
this expedited and complex matter be reassigned shortly before the hearing. The Court
will not consider the proposed brief and supporting declarations in any way.
For these reasons, the Moving Parties’ motion for leave to file an amicus brief
(Dkt. 42) is DENIED.
Date: January 2, 2026
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04669-KMM-DTS Doc. 45 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 2