UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:25-cv-00173-SDN
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
The United States filed suit against the Maine Department of Education (“MDOE”)
on claims that Maine is violating Title IX by allowing transgender athletes to compete in
girls’ sports. ECF No. 1. On July 31, 2026, MDOE filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, ECF No. 102, to which the United States responded, ECF No. 105, and MDOE
replied, ECF No. 111.
On 	September 	8, 	2026, 	Do 	No 	Harm, 	Inc. 	(“Do 	No 	Harm”), 	a nonparty
organization, moved for leave to file an amicus brief in connection with MDOE’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 107. Do No Harm attached its proposed brief to
the motion. ECF No. 107-1. In its motion, Do No Harm describes itself as a nonprofit
membership organization that includes more than 54,000 physicians, nurses, medical
students, patients, and policymakers and is committed to ensuring that the practice of
medicine is driven by scientific evidence rather than ideology. ECF No. 107 at 3. It seeks
to file an amicus brief “to help the Court understand why Title IX forbids—and science
does not support—identity-based exceptions to sex-based sports teams.” Id. MDOE
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 113 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
disputes the factual and legal assertions in the proposed brief but takes no position on
whether the Court should grant leave to file it. ECF No. 112.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specify the conditions under which a
district court should permit an amicus appearance. All. of Auto. Mfrs. v. Gwadowsky, 297
F. Supp. 2d 305, 306 (D. Me. 2003) (“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are silent as
to the conditions under which a trial court should permit amicus appearances . . . .”).
Although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 governs amicus filings in the courts of
appeals, district courts have looked to that rule for guidance when considering requests
for leave to file amicus briefs at the district court. See Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of
S. Portland, No. 15-CV-00054, 2017 WL 79948, at *5 (D. Me. Jan. 9, 2017). The First
Circuit has explained that “the acceptance of amicus briefs is within the sound discretion
of the court.” Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970).
Courts in this circuit have considered whether “there is an issue of general public
interest, the amicus provides supplemental assistance to existing counsel, or the amicus
insures a complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach
a proper decision.” Gwadowsky, 297 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (quotation modified); Portland
Pipe Line Corp., 2017 WL 79948, at *5 (same); United States v. Keleher, 475 F. Supp. 3d
80, 85 (D.P.R. 2020). The civil rights of Maine’s residents plainly implicate the public
interest.
A permissive approach to amicus participation allows the Court to evaluate a
proposed brief’s usefulness without treating the decision to accept it as an endorsement
of its contents. As this Court has observed, “assuming the other criteria are met, the Court
could grant the motion for leave to file an amicus brief and take the brief for what it is
worth.” Portland Pipe Line Corp., 2017 WL 79948, at *5 (citing Neonatology Assocs., P.A.
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 113 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
v. Comm’r, 293 F.3d 128, 132–133 (3d Cir. 2002) (Alito, J.)); Likewise, “[i]f denied, the
court may be deprived of the advantage of a good brief, but if granted, the court can readily
decide for itself whether the brief is beneficial.” Animal Prot. Inst. v. Martin, No. CV-06-
128 BW, 2007 WL 647567, at *3 (D. Me. Feb. 23, 2007). Importantly, allowing an amicus
brief does not signify a position on the merits or an acceptance of any asserted facts.
Indeed, “[p]ermitting an amicus brief is not synonymous with accepting—at face value—
every factual or legal assertion therein.” Wagafe v. Biden, No. 17-cv-00094, 2022 WL
457983, at *2 (W.D. WA 2022) (citing Artichoke Joe’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 353
F.3d 712, 719 n.10 (9th Cir. 2003) (declining to consider issues raised only in an amicus
brief absent “exceptional circumstances”)). Outside organizations may nevertheless offer
perspectives or specialized knowledge that assist the Court in addressing issues of broader
public interest. See Portland Pipe Line Corp., 2017 WL 79948, at *5–6.
That assistance does not extend to supplementing the factual record on the
pending motion. In Portland Pipe Line, the Court cautioned against allowing amici to
“infuse external facts into the Court’s consideration” and explained that it would glean
the facts from the parties’ statements of material facts, rather than from the amici briefs.
Id. Although that case involved summary judgment, the same concern applies here.
Granting leave to file an amicus brief does not authorize Do No Harm to introduce
evidence or establish disputed facts through its submission. In resolving MDOE’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings, the Court will consider only those materials properly
cognizable on that motion and will not treat factual assertions in the amicus brief as
evidence or as supplementing the pleadings.
The United States and MDOE are well-versed in the issues, and MDOE disputes
the factual and legal assertions in Do No Harm’s proposed brief. Those disputes, however,
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 113 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
do not require the Court to deny leave to file. The Court can assess the brief’s usefulness
and the weight, if any, to give its arguments while observing the limitations described
above. Given the public interest in the issues presented, the potential for supplemental
assistance, and MDOE’s decision to take no position on the request for leave, the Court
concludes that permitting the filing is appropriate. The Court expresses no view on the
merits of the proposed brief and reserves judgment on the pending motion for judgment
on the pleadings until it has reviewed the relevant briefing.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Do No Harm’s motion for leave to file an
amicus brief. ECF No. 107. Do No Harm shall file such brief within three days of this
Order. If either the Plaintiff or Defendant wishes to file a response to the amicus brief,
the responding party must do so within fourteen days of the filing of the Amicus Brief.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 7th day of October, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 113 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>