Published
June 26, 2026
Active Litigation · No Claim or Settlement
This article summarizes court filings in an ongoing civil rights appeal. Statements described below are the parties' litigation positions, attributed to the filing or the party that made them, and have not been finally decided by the court. This is not a class action settlement; there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
This update concerns a procedural showdown in Susan Tincher v. Noem, an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (No. 26-1105), arising from a civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 25-cv-04669, before the Hon. Katherine Menendez). The named defendant is Kristi Noem, sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Minnesota, among other counsel.On April 20, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a response to the government's motion to dismiss the appeal, together with a cross-motion. According to that filing, after the government ended a law-enforcement program called "Operation Metro Surge," the legal challenge tied to it lost its target — and both sides now agree the appeal should be dismissed as moot. What they do not agree on is whether an earlier, interim appellate order should be wiped off the books. The plaintiffs ask the court to vacate that order under the Munsingwear doctrine.
Status
Cross-Motion Pending · Filed April 20, 2026
Tincher v. Noem · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (No. 26-1105)
Core Issue
Vacate the interim stay order under Munsingwear
Both sides agree the appeal itself is moot after the program ended
What Mooted It
DHS ended Operation Metro Surge
District court then dissolved the program-specific preliminary injunction
Can I Claim?
No — not a class action
A court filing; no settlement, no fund, no claim form
How the Appeal Became Moot
The underlying case produced a preliminary injunction — a temporary court order limiting certain government conduct while the lawsuit proceeded. According to the filing, that injunction, by its own terms, applied only to Operation Metro Surge and expressly excluded conduct outside the program.When the government ended Operation Metro Surge, the filing states, the preliminary injunction was no longer of any force or effect, and the district court formally dissolved it as "clearly moot." In plain terms, "mootness" means a court no longer has a live dispute to resolve: when the challenged program was canceled, the lawsuit lost the target it was trying to change, so there was nothing left for the appeals court to decide about the injunction. The plaintiffs write that, with no injunction of continuing effect, "this appeal is moot," and note that the government appears to concede the point because it moved to dismiss its own appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2).
The Munsingwear Vacatur Fight
With the appeal itself headed for dismissal, the contested question is what happens to an interim order the appellate court issued earlier in the case: an administrative panel's decision granting a stay pending appeal. According to the filing, that stay order was reached quickly, after expedited briefing on an emergency motion, and was never tested through full merits briefing, argument, en banc review, or a potential petition to the Supreme Court.The plaintiffs argue that because the government's own decision to end the program is what mooted the appeal, they lost the chance to fully contest that interim order — and so, they contend, it should not be left standing as the last word. They invoke the Munsingwear doctrine, which traces to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. (1950) and U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership (1994). The filing quotes the principle that "a party who seeks review of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment," and that "mootness by happenstance provides sufficient reason to vacate."
Why the Plaintiffs Say the Order Should Not Survive
The filing argues that the government cannot treat the interim stay order as binding precedent in some settings while resisting its vacatur here. As described in the filing, in moving to dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, the government told the district court that, "as the Eighth Circuit has already found in this case," protesters had "engaged in unlawful and obstructive conduct" — citing the appellate decision. The filing also states that, in a separate appeal (U.H.A. v. Bondi, No. 26-1482), the government characterized another judge's ruling as "violating this Court's recent decision in Tincher v. Noem."From the plaintiffs' perspective, the filing argues, "the Government cannot have it both ways": if the interim order carries preclusive or precedential weight, then it must be vacated under Munsingwear; and to the extent the order is treated as merely tentative, then there is nothing to lose by vacating it. The filing cites appellate authority — including Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. NRSC (11th Cir. 2020) and a concurrence by Judge Menashi in Öztürk v. Hyde (2d Cir. 2025) — for the view that an interim stay opinion should either not bind future panels or be subject to vacatur when a case becomes moot before the merits are decided. These are the plaintiffs' arguments; the court has not ruled on the cross-motion.
What Happens Next
The matter is now before the Eighth Circuit on two requests: the government's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to vacate the administrative panel's stay order under Munsingwear. The court could dismiss the appeal and grant vacatur, dismiss without vacating, or resolve the requests in some other way. As of this writing, the panel had not ruled.For readers tracking how courts handle government programs that end mid-litigation, the case sits alongside other government and civil rights disputes we follow, such as the Oregon prison solitary-confinement class action and the DJI challenge to the FCC drone-import order. This page will be updated if the Eighth Circuit rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Tincher v. Noem about at this stage?
At this appellate stage, the dispute is procedural. According to the April 20, 2026 filing, DHS ended Operation Metro Surge, and the district court then dissolved the program-specific preliminary injunction as moot. Both sides now agree the appeal should be dismissed as moot. The remaining question is whether the Eighth Circuit should also vacate an earlier interim stay order under the Munsingwear doctrine.What does it mean for a case to be "moot"?
A legal challenge becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute for the court to resolve. Here, the preliminary injunction applied only to Operation Metro Surge. When the government ended that program, the filing states, the injunction was no longer of any force or effect, so there was nothing left for the appeals court to decide about it.What is the Munsingwear doctrine?
Munsingwear refers to a line of cases, beginning with United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. (1950), under which an appellate court may vacate a lower decision when a case becomes moot before the appeal is finally resolved. The idea is that a party who wanted full review, but lost the chance because of mootness, should not be permanently bound by an interim ruling it never got to fully contest.Is this a class action or is there anything to claim?
No. This page summarizes a civil rights appeal and a pending procedural motion, not a settlement or class action claims process. There is no settlement fund, no claim form, and nothing to file. The page is informational and is not legal advice.Sources
• Court records — Tincher v. Noem, No. 26-1105, Plaintiffs-Appellees' Response to Defendants-Appellants' Rule 42(b)(2) Motion and Cross-Motion to Vacate the Prior Administrative Panel Order (8th Cir., filed Apr. 20, 2026).• Underlying case — Tincher v. Noem, No. 25-cv-04669 (D. Minn.), Hon. Katherine Menendez.
• Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 — Voluntary Dismissal
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Appeal — Motion to Dismiss as Moot + Cross-Motion to Vacate Pending
Case Title
Tincher v. Noem
Appellate No.
26-1105 (8th Cir.)
District Case
25-cv-04669 (D. Minn.)
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date Filed
April 20, 2026
Plaintiffs' Counsel
ACLU; ACLU of Minnesota
