Joy et al v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER JOY and MISTY THOMAS, on 	)
behalf of themselves and all others similarly 	)
situated, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:23-CV-1590-ZMB
)
HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN 	)
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF 	)
MISSOURI, d/b/a MOHELA, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is the State of Missouri’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief
in Support of Defendant MOHELA’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 28, and Motion to File Amicus
Brief, Doc. 41. This matter was originally two separate cases before the Court granted Plaintiffs
Jennifer Joy and Misty Thomas’s Motion to Consolidate in January 2025. Docs. 20, 32. Several
weeks prior, Missouri moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of a motion to dismiss
filed by MOHELA in each of the then-separate cases. Docs. 28, 41. Those motions, and the
underlying amici briefs themselves, are functionally identical to each other, only identifying
different plaintiffs. Id.; see Doc. 28-1. Joy and Thomas, and Plaintiffs Spencer Morgan, Francis
Novak, and Rowena Koenig (“Plaintiffs”) filed their respective, but identical, opposition to
Missouri’s motions two weeks later, Doc. 29, 42, which Missouri replied, Docs. 30, 43.
Missouri argues that the Court should grant its motions because the State “has a strong
interest in the outcome of this litigation given that . . . MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri”
and its “participation as an amicus curiae will bring to this Court the State’s categorical position
Case: 4:23-cv-01590-ZMB Doc. #: 61 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
on the issue of sovereign immunity; one the current parties are unable to provide.” Doc. 28 at 2–
3, Doc. 41 at 2–3. Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reject the amici briefs because “the
information offered by the State of Missouri is neither timely nor useful” and that “the State of
Missouri’s proposed brief advocates solely for MOHELA.” Doc. 29 at 2–4; Doc. 42 at 2–4.
“District Courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to accept amicus briefs.”
Williams v. Centene Corp., No. 4:22-CV-216-SEP, 2023 WL 2755544, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31,
2023). Generally, courts should accept an amicus brief when “the amicus has unique information
or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to
provide.” Id. (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th
Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiffs’ contention that “Missouri does not raise anything useful, or any law, fact, or
circumstance that might otherwise escape the Court’s consideration” is unavailing. Doc. 29 at 3;
Doc. 42 at 3. Missouri’s amici briefs notify the Court that Missouri intended MOHELA to function
as an arm of the state. Doc. 28-1 at 7–9; Doc. 41 at 7–9. While not dispositive by itself, Courts
frequently consider state intention when determining whether Eleventh Amendment immunity
should apply to an entity. See Good v. Dep’t of Educ., 121 F.4th 772, 822 n.35 (10th Cir. 2024)
(collecting cases). Neither Plaintiffs, nor MOHELA for that matter, can define Missouri’s position
on MOHELA’s status. Only Missouri can.
The Court is also not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument regarding timeliness. Plaintiffs cite
two out-of-circuit district court cases for the proposition that MOHELA’s motions are untimely.1
Doc. 29 at 2–3 (citing Church of Celestial Heart v. Garland, 2024 WL 3569219 (E.D. Cal. July
29, 2024) and Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 2009 WL 10677466 (D. Mont. June 5,
1 Joy and Thomas argue that a 10-month delay is untimely, while Morgan, Novak, and Koenig cite the same authority
for the idea a 9-month delay is untimely.
Case: 4:23-cv-01590-ZMB Doc. #: 61 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
2009)); see Doc. 42 at 2–3. However, the instant matter is not comparable to those two cases. In
Garland, the prospective amicus sought “to file a brief that would be in support of an already
adjudicated motion.” 2024 WL 3569219, at *1 n.2. In Servheen, the prospective amicus sought to
file their brief “seven months after the parties completed summary judgment briefing and almost
four months after the Court heard oral argument on the matter.” 2009 WL 10677466, at *1. Here,
Missouri sought leave to file amici briefs in support of motions to dismiss that were still pending
and, significantly, shortly after a supplemental authority by Joy and Thomas.2 See Doc. 30 at 2;
Doc. 43 at 2. Given the circumstances, the Court deems the motions timely.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue the Court should reject Missouri’s amicus briefs because the
“proposed brief advocates solely for MOHELA,” and the briefs “duplicate[] the arguments made
in MOHELA’s motion to dismiss and reply briefs.”3 Doc. 29 at 4; Doc. 42 at 4. This argument
fails because it does not credit Missouri’s independent interest in the preservation of Eleventh
Amendment immunity for what it believes to be its instrumentalities. Given that Missouri argues
that it intended MOHELA to function as an arm of the state, it is unsurprising that Missouri
advances arguments in favor of Eleventh Amendment immunity similar to those advanced by
MOHELA. That should not prohibit Missouri from filing an amicus brief.
2 Joy and Thomas provided the Court notice of Good v. Dep’t of Educ. about a month before Missouri moved for leave
to file its amici briefs. Doc. 24. In Good, the Tenth Circuit noted that Missouri’s brief in Biden v. Nebraska was “not
a case in which Missouri has submitted a brief directly notifying us of its position as to MOHELA’s status; rather, the
brief was submitted in an entirely separate matter.” 121 F.4th at 822 n.35. Given that holding, it is easy to credit
Missouri’s claim that the holding in Good was relevant to their decision to seek leave to file amici briefs. See Doc. 30
at 3; Doc. 43 at 3.
3 Given Plaintiffs’ contention that the “proposed brief reiterates the same arguments that MOHELA [already] made,”
Doc. 29 at 3; Doc. 42 at 3, it is unclear why they would need to “reserve their right to respond to the substantive
arguments,” Doc. 29 at 1 n.1; Doc. 42 at 1 n.1. Despite this contradictory position, however, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs leave to file a response to the amicus briefs not to exceed 10 pages and no later than February 3, 2026.
Case: 4:23-cv-01590-ZMB Doc. #: 61 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Thus, the Court grants the first of Missouri’s motions for leave to file an amicus brief. Doc. 28.
Given that the State’s two amicus briefs are substantively identical and that there is no compelling
need for both briefs to be docketed, the Court denies Missouri’s second motion as moot.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Missouri’s [28] Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae
Brief in Support of Defendant MOHELA’s Motion to Dismiss and DENIES as moot Missouri’s
[41] Motion to File Amicus Brief. Missouri is ORDERED to file their [28-1] Amicus Curiae Brief
without undue delay. Further, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file a response to the amicus brief
not to exceed 10 pages and no later than February 3, 2026.
So ordered this 20th day of January 2026.
ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:23-cv-01590-ZMB Doc. #: 61 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>