# Minnesota Management and Budget *State agency that administers Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 statewide, the statute cited in the federal complaint in* United States v. State of Minnesota *(0:26-cv-00273).* Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) is the [[Minnesota]] state agency that administers [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] statewide.[^1] On its own website, the agency publishes a history of its [[Affirmative action]] program.[^2] On January 14, 2026, the United States filed suit against the State under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] in [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]], in the District of Minnesota. The complaint cites § 43A.191 eight times. One of those citations is to subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^3] The same day, the [[United States Department of Justice]] issued release No. 26-21. Its title describes the State's apparatus as "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime." The release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^4] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages ([[How Minnesota Got Here]], note 40) finds that Minnesota is the only U.S. state the federal government has described this way. The project treats "regime" as the U.S. government's term of art for governments it opposes. Its example is the [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338), which states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^5] ## Who MMB is the agency that administers § 43A.191 across state government.[^1] The project keeps validated claim–link rows identifying MMB in this role under five of its catalogued legal theories: - Title VII disparate treatment; - Fourteenth Amendment equal protection; - the First Amendment; - civil RICO; - procedural due process. The MMB home page appears in five or more of the project's source documents.[^1] These theories are the project's own classifications. Of them, only the Title VII action is shown in the record as a filed federal complaint.[^3] The plaintiff in the federal action is the United States. Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^4] ## What The instrument at issue is Minn. Stat. § 43A.191. The federal complaint quotes subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^3] MMB's own published account of the program is its affirmative action program history page.[^2] The agency also maintains a page for the One Minnesota Plan.[^6] The record sets that self-presentation beside a documented output: a statutory text requiring a written justification whenever a non-affirmative candidate is hired. That text is the provision the United States cites in its complaint.[^3] ## When - **1998.** Congress enacted the Iraq Liberation Act, Pub. L. 105-338. The project cites it as its reference point for U.S.-government "regime" usage.[^5] - **2025.** The Supreme Court decided *[[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]]*, 605 U.S. 303.[^7] - **January 14, 2026.** The complaint in No. 0:26-cv-00273 was filed.[^3] DOJ issued release No. 26-21 the same day.[^4] The record does not show who enacted or amended § 43A.191, or when. ## Where The action is before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, docket No. 0:26-cv-00273.[^3] MMB administers the statute statewide.[^1] ## Why The United States' stated framing appears in the title of release No. 26-21, which calls the State's apparatus "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime."[^4] The documentary predicate for the action is the statute's own text, which the complaint cites eight times, including subdivision 3(c).[^3] The record shows that framing and those citations. It does not establish anything about the reasons of any official beyond them. ## How The complaint was brought under Title VII and rests on the text of § 43A.191.[^3] The record does not establish what the court will decide, and the matter is pending. In *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services* (2025), the Supreme 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.[^7] The record does not establish how the district court will apply *Ames* to the State's program. ## How many - **Eight:** the number of times the complaint cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191.[^3] - **Five:** the number of the project's catalogued legal theories with a validated claim–link row identifying MMB as the statute's administrator.[^1] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who - MMB is the statewide administrator of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191.[^1] ### What - Under subdivision 3(c) of § 43A.191, an agency must explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^3] ### When - The complaint and DOJ release No. 26-21 are both dated January 14, 2026.[^3][^4] ### Where - The case is in the District of Minnesota, No. 0:26-cv-00273.[^3] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota Management and Budget, *Minnesota Management and Budget* (agency home page, n.d.) — the agency cited in the project's claim–link rows (MC-32; Theories 1, 4, 7, 9 and 12) as the statewide administrator of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191. https://mn.gov/mmb/ [^2]: Minnesota Management and Budget, *Affirmative Action Program history* (n.d.) — the agency's published history of its affirmative action program. https://mn.gov/mmb/employee-relations/laws-policies-and-rules/state-laws/affirmative-action/ [^3]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII complaint citing Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^4]: 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) — release title and Attorney General Pamela Bondi's certification of 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 [^5]: United States Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — statement of policy supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein." https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^6]: Minnesota Management and Budget, *One Minnesota Plan* (n.d.) — the agency's One Minnesota Plan page. https://mn.gov/mmb/one-mn-plan/ [^7]: 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 distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs; rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf