# Affirmative Action Monitoring the Hiring Process (MHP) Form *Minnesota state-hiring form; the statute governing affirmative-action hiring explanations is cited in a 2026 federal Title VII complaint.* The Affirmative Action Monitoring the Hiring Process (MHP) Form is a [[Minnesota]] form which, as its title states, is used for [[Affirmative action]] monitoring of the hiring process. The primary sources assembled for this article do not reproduce the form or state its administering agency or adoption date. They do document the statutory requirement the form's title points toward. [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]], subd. 3(c), as quoted in a federal complaint, requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] These sources do not establish whether the MHP form is the instrument through which that explanation is recorded. On Jan. 14, 2026, the United States sued the State in *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.), under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The complaint cites § 43A.191 eight times.[^1] The same day, the [[United States Department of Justice]] issued release No. 26-21, titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*. The release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] 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.[^3] The sources here do not record a disposition of the suit. ## Statutory basis The complaint in No. 0:26-cv-00273 draws on § 43A.191 eight times. Among those provisions is subd. 3(c), which requires an agency to state its reason when it hires a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] The sources assembled here do not give the text of the MHP form. They also do not give the session law that enacted or amended § 43A.191, or the legislators, party majorities or governors who enacted, amended or maintained it. Those facts remain to be documented from the Revisor's history line and the session laws. The related provision [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.19]] is not described in these sources.[^1] ## Federal action The United States brought No. 0:26-cv-00273 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Jan. 14, 2026, under Title VII.[^1] The complaint alleges that the State's hiring framework under § 43A.191 conflicts with Title VII. Its documentary predicate is the statute itself, including the subd. 3(c) explanation requirement.[^1] The Department of Justice announced the filing in release No. 26-21 the same day. The release title applies the term "regime" to Minnesota's affirmative-action apparatus.[^2] According to the release, Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The suit followed the Supreme Court's 2025 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." The Court also rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^4] The complaint's own reliance on *Ames* is not established by the sources here.[^1] ## The term "regime" The U.S. government has used "regime" as a term for governments it opposes. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338), for example, states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^3] Release No. 26-21 applied the same word to Minnesota in its title.[^2] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described. That is the catalogue's finding, not an independently established fact.[^3] ## Notes [^1]: United States (plaintiff), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII action; cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c)'s requirement that an agency explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^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) — announces the suit; Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^3]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — states the policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein"; cited by the project's catalogue of "regime" usages (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40), which finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — holds that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs; rejects the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf