# Minnesota Department of Human Rights Affirmative Action Plan *Minnesota state affirmative-action planning; subject of a pending federal Title VII action (law record).* The **Minnesota Department of Human Rights Affirmative Action Plan** concerns affirmative-action planning in [[Minnesota]] state government. The sources for this article do not include the plan's text, its adoption date, or the officials who adopted or maintain it. They document the [[United States Department of Justice]]'s lawsuit against Minnesota's affirmative-action hiring requirements, filed on January 14, 2026, as *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)|United States v. State of Minnesota]]*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, in the District of Minnesota.[^1] The complaint was brought under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. It cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times, including the requirement in subdivision 3(c) that an agency explain why it hired a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] The Department of Justice announced the suit in release No. 26-21. The release's title describes the State's apparatus as Minnesota's "'Affirmative Action' Regime." Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] ## Federal complaint The United States filed its complaint on January 14, 2026, under docket No. 0:26-cv-00273 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.[^1] The action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[^1] Its documentary predicate is the state statute itself. 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.[^1] On the same date, the Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs issued release No. 26-21 announcing the suit.[^2] The release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The cited sources record the filing and the certification. They do not report a ruling or other disposition, and the case is treated here as pending.[^1] The cited sources do not establish when § 43A.191 or subdivision 3(c) was enacted or amended, or which legislature, party or administration enacted, amended, maintained or declined to repeal it.[^1] ## Legal background In the year before the filing, the Supreme Court decided *[[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]]*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025).[^3] The Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs."[^3] It also rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^3] The sources for this article do not state whether the complaint in No. 0:26-cv-00273 relies on *Ames*.[^1] ## "Regime" designation The title of Department of Justice release No. 26-21 is *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^2] The United States government has used "regime" in statute for governments it opposes. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998, Pub. L. 105-338, states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^4] 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 catalogue's finding, not an independently established fact.[^4] ## Notes [^1]: United States, complaint, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII action; cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c). 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) — announcement of suit; 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]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — holding that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no majority/minority distinction; rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf [^4]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — statutory policy of supporting removal of "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein"; cited by the project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf