# Minneapolis consent decree *Court-enforceable instruments, state and federal, directed at reform of the Minneapolis Police Department.* In the Minnesota record, the Minneapolis consent decree refers to two court-enforceable instruments directed at the [[Minneapolis Police Department]] (MPD), one state and one federal. The [[Minnesota Department of Human Rights]] (MDHR) filed a civil rights charge against the [[City of Minneapolis]] over MPD in July 2020.[^1] It issued a pattern-or-practice finding in April 2022, and a court-enforceable settlement agreement with the City was approved in 2023.[^2][^3] The [[United States Department of Justice]] issued its own findings report on the City and MPD in June 2023.[^4] On January 6, 2025, the Department and the City jointly filed a proposed federal [[consent decree]] in *United States v. City of Minneapolis*, No. 0:25-cv-00048 (D. Minn.). The Department's announcement described an agreement that provided for an independent monitor.[^5][^6] On May 21, 2025, the same Department moved to dismiss its own case. Judge [[Paul A. Magnuson]] dismissed it with prejudice on May 27, 2025, and denied the joint motion to approve the decree as moot, so the decree was never approved.[^7] Reforms continue under the City's settlement with MDHR.[^7][^3] The record does not establish the grounds the Department stated in its motion. On January 14, 2026, the Department announced a separate action against the State. Its Office of Public Affairs release No. 26-21 is titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*. That title is the United States' own term for the State's apparatus: "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime." Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified that case as a matter of general public importance.[^8] ## Who - **MDHR**, the state civil rights agency, filed the July 2020 charge, issued the April 2022 finding, and is party to the 2023 settlement with the City.[^1][^2][^3] - **The Department of Justice and the City of Minneapolis** jointly filed the federal decree. The City approved it on January 6, 2025, the day it was filed.[^7][^9] - **The Department of Justice** moved to dismiss the federal case on May 21, 2025.[^7][^10] - **Judge Paul A. Magnuson** of the District of Minnesota dismissed the case.[^7][^11] - **ELEFA** is the monitor under the MDHR settlement.[^7] The record does not carry the party or administration under which each instrument was filed, approved, or withdrawn. ## What The federal instrument was a consent decree under 34 U.S.C. §12601.[^5] It was filed together with a complaint and a joint motion for approval, and it provided for an independent monitor.[^6] The Department issued a fact sheet with the filing.[^12] The state instrument is a court-enforceable settlement agreement between MDHR and the City.[^2][^3] The record's time table calls it a consent decree and records that it requires comprehensive reform of MPD.[^1] ## When - **July 2020:** MDHR files a civil rights charge against the City over MPD.[^1] - **April 2022:** MDHR issues its pattern-or-practice finding.[^2] - **June 2023:** The Department of Justice issues its findings report on the City and MPD.[^4] - **2023:** The MDHR–City settlement agreement is approved.[^2][^3] - **January 6, 2025:** The federal decree is filed and approved by the City.[^5][^7] - **May 21, 2025:** The Department moves to dismiss.[^7][^10] - **May 27, 2025:** The case is dismissed with prejudice, per the dismissal order as docketed by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Sahan Journal reports that the order issued May 28, 2025.[^7][^11] - **January 14, 2026:** The Department issues release No. 26-21 announcing its separate lawsuit against the State.[^8] ## Where - The federal case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota as No. 0:25-cv-00048.[^5] - Both instruments concern the Minneapolis Police Department in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[^1][^5] ## Why The court's stated grounds for dismissal are in the record. Magnuson questioned whether the suit presented a case or controversy. He also called the decree "superfluous" given the City's existing settlement with MDHR.[^7] He wrote that he had "grave misgivings about the proposed consent decree serving the public interest."[^11] The Department's stated grounds for its motion are not in the record. ## How The federal decree reached the court as a joint proposal by the Department and the City.[^6] It ended on the Department's own motion. The court dismissed with prejudice and denied the pending joint approval motion as moot.[^7] Structural reform of MPD continues under the MDHR settlement, with ELEFA as monitor.[^7][^3] ## How many - **Findings:** Minneapolis drew two pattern-or-practice findings, one by MDHR in April 2022 and one by the Department of Justice in June 2023.[^2][^4] - **Pages:** The record's case entry lists the filed decree at 171 pages. The record's summary of the Department's January 2025 announcement, and its at-issue entry, give 169 pages.[^5][^6] - **Days:** The at-issue record counts 142 days from filing to dismissal, measured to the May 28, 2025 date reported by Sahan Journal.[^11][^7] ## In the at-issue record Entry [[At issue 025 - A 169-page consent decree was filed in United]] covers the federal decree. It pairs the January 6, 2025 filing with the dismissal with prejudice, quotes Magnuson's "grave misgivings" sentence, and counts the interval in days.[^5][^11] A second entry covers both findings and the withdrawal. It records the state (2022) and federal (2023) pattern-or-practice findings and the decree's withdrawal on the Department's motion in May 2025. It states that "the state settlement now stands alone."[^2][^4][^7] The record shows this sequence. It does not establish why the federal instrument was withdrawn. ## In the Minnesota record ### When - **1973–1980:** *Rajender v. University of Minnesota*, No. 4-73-Civ-435 (D. Minn.), was a [[Title VII]] class action against the [[University of Minnesota]] filed in 1973 by Shyamala Rajender. It ended in a consent decree dated August 13, 1980, following an 11-week trial before Judge [[Miles Lord]].[^13][^14] The record's time table enters $100,000 to Rajender and an injunction. Rajender II followed in 1989.[^13] The record's case entry names the decree as a historical predicate. One dossier note gives the docket as No. 4-73-435. - **1994–2003:** Successor litigation at the same institution, [[Maitland v. University of Minnesota]], was litigated over this period.[^15] - **2012–2017:** In March 2012 the Departments of Justice and Education resolved harassment allegations against the Anoka-Hennepin School District.[^16] The resolution took the form of a consent decree in *Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin School District*, No. 0:11-cv-01999 (D. Minn.).[^17] That decree ran its five-year term under federal supervision and expired in 2017.[^18] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota Department of Human Rights, *Press releases* (July 2020; 2023) — civil rights charge against the City of Minneapolis over MPD (July 2020); 2023 agreement with the City requiring comprehensive reform of MPD. https://mn.gov/mdhr/news-community/press-releases/ [^2]: Minnesota Department of Human Rights, *MDHR* (2022–2023) — pattern-or-practice finding regarding the City and MPD (April 2022); court-enforceable settlement agreement approved in 2023. https://mn.gov/mdhr/ [^3]: Minnesota Department of Human Rights, *MPD agreement* (2023) — the MDHR–City of Minneapolis settlement agreement. https://mn.gov/mdhr/mpd/agreement/ [^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Findings report on the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department* (June 2023) — federal pattern-or-practice findings. https://www.justice.gov/ [^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Consent Decree, United States v. City of Minneapolis*, No. 0:25-cv-00048 (D. Minn.) (filed Jan. 6, 2025) — 34 U.S.C. §12601 decree, listed at 171 pp. in the record's case entry. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1383116/dl [^6]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Justice Department Reaches Agreement with City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Police Department* (Jan. 2025) — joint filing on Jan. 6, 2025 of a proposed 169-page decree with complaint and joint motion for approval, providing for an independent monitor. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-agreement-city-minneapolis-and-minneapolis-police-department [^7]: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, *United States v. City of Minneapolis*, case 18178 (docket through May 27, 2025) — city approval on Jan. 6, 2025; DOJ dismissal motion (May 21, 2025); dismissal with prejudice (May 27, 2025); joint approval motion denied as moot; case-or-controversy question; decree called "superfluous"; reforms continue under the MDHR settlement (ELEFA monitor). https://clearinghouse.net/case/18178/ [^8]: 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) — lawsuit announced; certified by Attorney General Pamela Bondi as a matter of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^9]: Sahan Journal, *Consent decree approved* (Jan. 2025) — city approval of the federal decree. https://sahanjournal.com/public-safety/minneapolis-city-council-federal-consent-decree-police-reform/ [^10]: MPR News, *Minneapolis police federal consent decree agreement could be dismissed after DOJ filing* (May 21, 2025) — DOJ dismissal filing. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/05/21/minneapolis-police-federal-consent-decree-agreement-could-be-dismissed-after-doj-filing [^11]: Sahan Journal, *Minneapolis federal consent decree dismissed* (May 28, 2025) — Magnuson's "grave misgivings" language; order reported as issued May 28, 2025. https://sahanjournal.com/public-safety/minneapolis-federal-consent-decree-dismissed/ [^12]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Fact sheet, United States v. City of Minneapolis* (Jan. 2025) — fact sheet issued with the federal decree. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1383121/dl [^13]: Wikipedia, *Rajender v. University of Minnesota* — 1980 consent decree; 11-week trial before Judge Miles Lord; $100,000 to Rajender and an injunction; Rajender II (1989). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajender_v._University_of_Minnesota [^14]: University of Minnesota Conservancy, *The Rajender Consent Decree and Women in the Institute of Technology* — the Rajender decree. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/100395/WFC10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [^15]: University of Florida IFAS Extension, *Maitland v. University of Minnesota case history* — litigation 1994–2003. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hr050 [^16]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Departments of Justice and Education Resolve Harassment Allegations in Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota* (Mar. 2012) — federal resolution. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/departments-justice-and-education-resolve-harassment-allegations-anoka-hennepin-school [^17]: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, *Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin School District*, No. 0:11-cv-01999 (D. Minn.), case 13200 — consent decree and case record. https://clearinghouse.net/case/13200/ [^18]: ABC Newspapers / hometownsource.com, *Business as usual in Anoka-Hennepin following expiration of consent decree* (2017) — five-year decree expired in 2017. https://www.hometownsource.com/press_and_news/news/education/business-as-usual-in-anoka-hennepin-following-expiration-of-consent-decree/article_6c631500-318a-554e-9b59-29d4300e078c.html