# 5000.3420 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS; CONTRACTORS. *Part of the Minnesota Rules on affirmative-action plans and contractors (thin record)* **5000.3420 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS; CONTRACTORS.** is the title of a part of the administrative rules of [[Minnesota]]. By its title, it concerns [[affirmative action]] plans and contractors.[^1] The record compiled for this article does not include the rule's text, its adopting agency, its statutory authority, its effective date or its amendment history. The record therefore does not establish what the part requires of contractors, which agency administers it, or which party or administration adopted, amended or has maintained it.[^1] The rule's subject, affirmative action in Minnesota public employment, is the subject of a pending federal action. On January 14, 2026, the [[United States Department of Justice]] announced a lawsuit under the title *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^2] The complaint rests on a state statute, [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]]. The record compiled here does not show that the complaint cites or addresses rule part 5000.3420.[^3] ## Federal action concerning Minnesota affirmative-action requirements The United States filed [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] in the District of Minnesota on January 14, 2026. It brought the case under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].[^3] As filed, the complaint cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times. Among the provisions it cites is subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^3] These are the complaint's allegations and the statutory text it relies on. The record compiled here does not report any ruling or disposition.[^3] The Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs issued release No. 26-21 on the filing. In it, Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The complaint followed the Supreme Court's decision in [[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]], 605 U.S. 303 (2025). In that case, the Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." It also rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^4] ### The term "regime" The United States' own term for the State's affirmative-action apparatus appears in the title of release No. 26-21: "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime".[^2] The U.S. government has used "regime" in statute for governments it opposes. For example, the [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338) states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^5] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages ([[How Minnesota Got Here]], note 40) finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described. That is the project's catalogue finding, not an independently established fact.[^5] ## Notes [^1]: Wikipedia contributors, *5000.3420 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS; CONTRACTORS.* (retrieved 26 October 2026; CC BY-SA 4.0) — establishes the rule part's title; the page carries no section text in the record. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5000.3420_AFFIRMATIVE_ACTION_PLANS;_CONTRACTORS.> [^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (Jan. 14, 2026) — establishes the filing announcement, its title, and Attorney General Bondi's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^3]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (filed Jan. 14, 2026) — establishes the Title VII basis, the eight citations of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191, and the citation of subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — establishes the holding on majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII and the rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf [^5]: United States Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — establishes the statutory "regime" usage quoted; the Minnesota-only finding is the project's catalogue (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40), not this statute. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf