What is the current status and docket information for Hussen v. Noem and Tincher (Minnesota) cases?
Executive summary
Hussen v. Noem is a newly filed putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (docket 0:26‑cv‑00324) brought by the ACLU and partner firms on January 15, 2026; the complaint and summonses have been filed and counsel is moving for pro hac admission for several out‑of‑state lawyers [1] [2]. Tincher v. Noem (docket 0:25‑cv‑04669) is further along: a federal judge issued a written order granting in part and denying in part a motion for preliminary injunction on January 16, 2026, after hearings and a short-lived cancellation of an earlier scheduled hearing; parts of that relief have been stayed or appealed to the Eighth Circuit [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Hussen v. Noem — docket, filings, and immediate posture
The Hussen case was filed in the District of Minnesota on January 15, 2026 as Hussen et al. v. Noem et al., Civil Action No. 0:26‑cv‑00324, with a complaint publicly posted by the ACLU and the court docket reflecting the complaint filing, payment of filing fees, and requests that summonses be issued to multiple federal officials and agencies [1] [2]. The ACLU’s public materials describe Hussen as a putative class action challenging “suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling” by ICE, CBP, and other federal agents, and the complaint PDF is available through the ACLU’s site [7] [6]. The docket shows procedural housekeeping in mid‑January — summons issuance and pending pro hac vice motions for outside counsel — but, as of the latest docket snapshot, no dispositive rulings have been entered [1].
2. Tincher v. Noem — docket number, hearings, and judicial action
Tincher is docketed as 0:25‑cv‑04669 in the same court and was filed in December 2025 by Minnesota residents alleging constitutional violations during federal immigration enforcement operations; the case has prompted expedited briefing, multiple declarations, hearings, and a written order on preliminary injunctive relief signed January 16, 2026 by Judge Katherine M. Menendez [3] [8] [4]. The docket history records an initial conversion of a motion into a preliminary‑injunction motion, a briefing schedule targeting early January, a cancelled January 8 hearing rescheduled, argument on January 13, and the January 16 order granting in part and denying in part the requested relief [3] [5] [4].
3. What the court actually ordered and the appellate posture
Judge Menendez’s written order in Tincher granted certain preliminary protections for plaintiffs while denying other aspects of the injunction motion, a nuanced ruling memorialized in Document 85 on the docket [4]. The ACLU and Minnesota plaintiffs publicized the relief, but the government quickly sought appellate review: reporting and academic commentary indicate that an appellate court — the Eighth Circuit — temporarily suspended at least part of the district court’s order, reflecting ongoing litigation at the appellate level [6] [9]. The docket entries record routine filings, responses, and expedited transcript requests tied to the district court proceedings [5].
4. Parties, claims, and competing narratives on the dockets
Both cases pit private plaintiffs and the ACLU (and local counsel) against federal agencies and officials, with Hussen explicitly styled as a class action challenging systemic ICE/CBP practices and Tincher advancing claims tied to arrests and alleged retaliation directed at protesters, observers, and community members [7] [10]. The ACLU frames Hussen as redressing “warrantless arrests and racial profiling,” while Tincher has led to immediate judicial scrutiny and temporary injunctive relief — positions reflecting plaintiffs’ civil‑rights and First Amendment theories; the federal defendants, per docket filings, have sought to defend agency operations and to limit or overturn district court restraints through interlocutory appeals [6] [5].
5. What to watch next on the dockets and limits of available reporting
For Hussen, expect initial appearances, service of process, and briefing on any early motions (e.g., motions to dismiss or for preliminary relief) now that summonses have been issued and pro hac counsel applications are pending [1]. For Tincher, the immediate items to track are the district court’s compliance with appellate direction, any scheduling of further hearings or discovery, and the Eighth Circuit’s disposition of the government’s challenges to the preliminary order [4] [3] [6]. Reporting and court dockets provide these procedural milestones, but do not yet contain final rulings on merits; where the sources are silent, this report does not speculate beyond the docketed entries and public filings [1] [5] [2].