# Claim test — "Minnesota's federal disclosures are fraudulent" _The Welcome page (October 29, 2026) states one claim: the State of Minnesota signs papers representing that it administers federal money without regard to race, sex or national origin while its own statutes require its agencies to act by race and sex, so the representations are false. This page breaks the claim into its load-bearing propositions, in order of impact, and tests each against the primary documents. Verdicts: **holds** · **holds, narrower than stated** · **fails as stated** · **open** (the deciding document is not yet in the record). Where the claim is weaker than the Welcome page said, the Welcome page is changed, not footnoted._ > [!quote] Evidence layer > Every quotation below is verbatim from a document in `_spines/_packs/sources/fraudclaim/` or an existing pack, fetched October 29, 2026. The analysis is in the verdict lines and in §7. ## 1. What the State actually signs — the representation link **1a. The grant assurance (SF-424B, item 6).** The standard assurance attached to non-construction federal grant applications reads: "Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended … which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; … (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and, (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application." ([SF-424B, Rev. 7-97](https://www.nist.gov/iaao/teachlearn/upload/Fillable-SF424B.pdf)) — a forward-looking promise that reaches "any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply", which for an employer includes Title VII. **Verdict: holds as to what the form says; open as to Minnesota's signed copies.** The certifications spine's own index holds 62 signatures of which 29 are auditee certifications on audit packages and 4 are SAM.gov registrations; the grant assurances themselves are listed under "Not yet collected: … grant assurances since 1965". The representation the claim rests on exists by federal rule on every application (next item), but the project has not yet pulled a single signed Minnesota SF-424B or agency-specific assurance. **1b. The Title VI assurance is a condition of every application.** "Every application for Federal financial assistance to which this part applies … shall, as a condition to its approval and the extension of any Federal financial assistance pursuant to the application, contain or be accompanied by an assurance that the program will be conducted or the facility operated in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to this part." ([45 C.F.R. § 80.4(a)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/80.4), HHS; the Justice Department's rule is [28 C.F.R. § 42.105](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/42.105)). **Holds** — but Title VI is race, color and national origin; sex enters through Title IX (education programs) and program statutes, not Title VI. **1c. The single-audit certification is not a nondiscrimination representation.** The signature on the statewide audit package is prescribed by [2 C.F.R. § 200.512(b)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.512): "A senior-level representative of the auditee … must sign a statement to be included as part of the data collection form stating that the auditee complied with the requirements of this part, including that: (i) The data collection form was prepared in accordance with this part …; (ii) The reporting package does not include protected personally identifiable information; (iii) The information included in its entirety is accurate and complete; and (iv) The FAC is authorized to make the reporting package and the form publicly available." "This part" is the audit rule, subpart F. The Welcome page listed these certifications among the papers "telling the United States that it administers federal money in compliance with the laws forbidding discrimination". **Fails as stated.** What the ten statewide packages establish is the money and the signers: the Federal Audit Clearinghouse's own records, pulled today through its API, show ten statewide packages for audit years 2016–2025, each certified by a Minnesota Management and Budget Assistant Commissioner, with total federal expenditures of **$184,588,166,429** — the spine's figure to the dollar (FY2025: $20,815,212,884, accepted March 31, 2026, audited by the Office of the State Auditor; FY2016–2020 audited by the Legislative Auditor). **1d. The financial-report certification is an indirect representation.** Every federal financial report must carry: "By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812)." ([2 C.F.R. § 200.415(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.415)). The award terms must incorporate the nondiscrimination provisions: the awarding agency "must manage and administer the Federal award in a manner so as to ensure that Federal funding is expended and associated programs are implemented in full accordance with the U.S. Constitution, applicable Federal statutes and regulations—including provisions … prohibiting discrimination—and the requirements of this part … and incorporate them directly or by reference in the terms and conditions of the Federal award." ([2 C.F.R. § 200.300(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.300)). **Holds, narrower than stated:** the certification is that expenditures served the award's purposes under its terms; the nondiscrimination promise is in the terms, one step removed. None of Minnesota's signed financial reports is in the index. **1e. SAM.gov.** The registration's "Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations" are being revised: on February 18, 2026 GSA published a draft adding a certification that the registrant "[w]ill comply with the US Constitution, all Federal laws, and relevant executive orders prohibiting unlawful discrimination on the basis of race or color in the administration of federally funded programs," with examples including "preferential hiring or promotion practices" and "race-based contract selection"; comments closed March 30, 2026 ([Ogletree, Feb. 27, 2026](https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-grantees-get-preview-draft-illegal-dei-statement-and-other-new); [Proskauer, Apr. 13, 2026](https://www.proskauer.com/blog/proposal-will-require-federal-grant-recipients-to-certify-dei-compliance-requirements-to-register-with-system-for-award-management)). Whether it has taken effect is **not found in the record read**; the four Minnesota SAM registrations in the index predate it. **Open.** **1f. Executive Order 14173, § 3(b)(iv) — the express materiality term.** The order instructs "[t]he head of each agency [to] include in every contract or grant award: (A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government's payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and (B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws." (quoted in [*NADOHE v. Trump*, No. 25-1189 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026)](https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/NADOHE-v-Trump-Feb-2026.pdf), which **vacated** the district court's nationwide injunction against the provision; the district case closed June 20, 2026 per the [Clearinghouse docket](https://clearinghouse.net/case/46024/)). **Holds as federal law in force since 2025; open as to Minnesota:** no federal award to a Minnesota agency carrying the § 3(b)(iv) term is in the record. That one document — an award accepted after January 21, 2025, signed by an officer who administers § 43A.191 — is the highest-value item the project does not yet hold. ## 2. What State law requires — the mandate link "To assure that positions in the executive branch of the civil service are equally accessible to all qualified persons, and to eliminate the underutilization of qualified members of protected groups, the commissioner shall adopt and periodically revise, if necessary, a statewide affirmative action program." ([Minn. Stat. § 43A.19, subd. 1](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/43A.19), quoted in the [FY2023–24 biennial report](https://www.lrl.mn.gov/docs/2026/mandated/260035.pdf)). "The head of each agency in the executive branch shall prepare and implement an agency affirmative action plan." ([§ 43A.191, subd. 2(a)](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/43A.191)). "An agency that does not meet its hiring goals must justify its nonaffirmative action hires in competitive appointments and noncompetitive appointments … according to criteria issued by the department." (subd. 3(c)). The operating document: "Under Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.191, subdivision 3, agencies use the Monitoring the Hiring Process (MHP) to gather information about hiring practices in vacancies where there is an underutilization of a protected group in an applicable job category. … Select affirmative status of individual hired for the vacancy: Affirmative / Non-Affirmative." ([MMB, Affirmative Action Monitoring the Hiring Process Form, October 2025](https://mn.gov/mmb-stat/equal-opportunity/affirmative-action/monitoring-the-hiring-process-form.pdf)). The United States pleads the same mechanism: an agency that misses its goals "must 'justify its nonaffirmative action hires' by submitting a Pre-Hire Justification Form (PHJ) that 'explain[s] the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.'" ([Complaint ¶ 33](https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl)). Contracts and purchasing: [§ 363A.36](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A.36) (workforce certificates) and [§ 16C.16](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/16C.16) (preferences by group). **Holds, verbatim.** This link is the strongest in the chain and nobody disputes it — the State's answer of June 16, 2026 contests the legal conclusion, not the statutes. ## 3. Does federal law forbid what State law requires? — the mismatch link **3a. Title VI does not reach employment.** "Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize action under this subchapter by any department or agency with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization except where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment." ([42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000d-3)). A Title VI assurance covers the funded *program's* treatment of beneficiaries; the State's hiring goals are an *employment* practice. **Fails as stated** for a general Title VI theory; **holds** for assistance whose primary objective is employment, and for any program-level preference by race (a § 16C.16-style preference applied to federally funded purchasing is the clean case). **3b. Title VII — the open legal question.** Title VII makes it unlawful to "discriminate against … or limit, segregate, or classify" employees because of race or sex, and *Weber* (1979) and *Johnson* (1987) read it to permit voluntary affirmative action plans within limits. The United States' complaint says so itself and asks the court to go the other way: "in 1979, the United States Supreme Court 'introduce[d] into Title VII a tolerance for the very evil that the law was intended to eradicate' … and held that Title VII authorizes private employers to adopt 'affirmative action plans …'"; "Eight years later, the Court extended *Weber* to public employers and sex-based affirmative action. *Johnson* …"; "Diverging from *Weber* and *Johnson*, the Supreme Court has since directed … 'Only the written word is the law' … *Bostock*." (Complaint ¶¶ 3–7). The pleaded theory is a Title VII pattern or practice (¶ 13), not a false certification; the case is in discovery with an amended complaint filed September 11, 2026 ([docket](https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/)). **Open:** no court has held § 43A.191 unlawful; until one does, "false" rests on a contested reading of Title VII. **3c. Equal protection — contracting.** Race-based preferences in public contracting are subject to strict scrutiny under [*City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/488/469) (1989). **Holds as the sharpest legal mismatch**, for § 16C.16 and § 363A.36 rather than for hiring goals; whether the State has a disparity study supporting § 16C.16 is **open**. **3d. Until January 21, 2025, federal law required the same kind of plan of federal contractors.** "An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. … If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization." ([41 C.F.R. § 60-2.10(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/41/60-2.10), the Revised Order No. 4 lineage, in force under Executive Order 11246 until its revocation by Executive Order 14173). The State's statute uses the same vocabulary — "underutilization", "availability", "goals". **Fails as stated for the years before 2025**: the federal government required availability-based goals of its contractors and accepted them from grantees; the mismatch the claim describes is a 2025 mismatch, not a 1972 one. ## 4. Materiality and knowledge — *Escobar* "The materiality standard is demanding. The False Claims Act is not 'an all-purpose antifraud statute' … A misrepresentation cannot be deemed material merely because the Government designates compliance with a particular statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement as a condition of payment. … Moreover, if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material." ([*Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar*, 579 U.S. 176 (2016)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-7)). The State's affirmative action statutes have been public law since 1981 and 1985; MMB's biennial report is a mandated public document; the Department of Public Safety used its affirmative action plan to meet a Justice Department equal-employment-plan award condition, and the federal single audit for 2023 reviewed and faulted it (certifications spine). The United States paid every one of the ten audited years in full. **Fails as stated for audit years 2016–2024; holds for awards carrying the § 3(b)(iv) term**, because that term makes compliance material by contract and *Escobar* says materiality by designation alone is not enough — which is exactly why the order adds an express materiality agreement. ## 5. Scienter — *SuperValu* "The FCA's scienter element refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs — not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed." ([*United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.*, 598 U.S. 739 (2023)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-1326)). A State that signs "will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination" while believing, on *Weber* and *Johnson*, that its plan complies, has not acted "knowingly" unless the belief was reckless. The State's answer (June 16, 2026) is the document that states its belief; it is not in the record read. **Open**, and the second-highest-value document to collect. ## 6. The numbers 62 signatures (33 State, 29 auditor); $184,588,166,429 of federal expenditures, audit years 2016–2025; 20 adopting State instruments in force in 2016 rising to 27 in 2026 — the first two verified today against the Federal Audit Clearinghouse API (ten statewide packages, FY2016–2025, sum exact); the third is the certifications spine's own count of its instrument table. **Holds.** ## 7. What the test does to the claim > [!abstract] Analysis layer The chain holds at both ends and is weakest in the middle. The State signs forward-looking promises to comply with every nondiscrimination statute that applies (1a, 1b), and its statutes require race- and sex-conscious hiring, contracting and purchasing (2). The audit certifications the Welcome page leaned on are not promises of nondiscrimination; they are the proof of the money and the signers (1c), and the Welcome page is corrected accordingly. Between the promise and the mandate sits a legal question no court has answered — whether Title VII, read as *Bostock* reads statutes, still tolerates *Weber*/*Johnson* plans (3b) — and two facts that cut against fraud for the years before 2025: Title VI does not reach employment (3a), and the federal government itself required availability-based goals of its contractors until January 21, 2025 (3d), knew what Minnesota was doing, and paid (4). Stated at its true strength, the claim is this: **from January 21, 2025, every federal award to a Minnesota agency is required to carry an express agreement that compliance with federal anti-discrimination law is material to payment and a certification that the recipient runs no discriminatory "DEI" program; Minnesota's statutes require its agencies to run exactly such programs; the United States has pleaded in federal court that those programs violate Title VII; and the officers who sign the awards administer the statutes.** For contracting preferences under *Croson* the mismatch is older and sharper. For the years before 2025, the record supports "the United States required it, knew it, and paid" — which is the second reading, and the one a hostile reader will raise first. The documents that would close the open items, in order: (1) one post-January 2025 federal award to a Minnesota agency with the § 3(b)(iv) term and its signature page; (2) the State's answer in No. 0:26-cv-00273 (June 16, 2026); (3) Minnesota's signed SF-424B/HHS-690/FHWA assurances for the ten audited years; (4) whether GSA finalized the SAM.gov anti-discrimination certification and when Minnesota's registrations renewed after it; (5) any disparity study behind § 16C.16. _Sources: `_spines/_packs/sources/fraudclaim/` (fetched 2026-10-29), the `aaportal`, `feminists` and `humphrey` packs, the certifications spine, and the Federal Audit Clearinghouse API (`general`, auditee "State of Minnesota", audit years 2016–2025)._