# Requirements for agency affirmative action plans *Minnesota statutory requirement on state-agency hiring, cited in a pending federal Title VII suit* [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] sets requirements for Minnesota state agencies that hire. As described in a federal complaint, subdivision 3(c) requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] On January 14, 2026, the [[United States Department of Justice]] filed [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], and the complaint cites § 43A.191 eight times.[^1] The Department announced the suit the same day in Office of Public Affairs release No. 26-21. The release is titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, which applies the United States' own term, "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime", to the State's apparatus. The release reports 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] ## Provisions cited in the complaint The complaint cites § 43A.191 eight times. Among the provisions it cites is subd. 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] The record assembled for this article does not include the Revisor's text of the section. It also does not establish the section's enactment and amendment history or the legislators, party majorities and governors who enacted, amended or maintained it. Those points are therefore not stated here. ## Federal litigation The United States filed *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 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.[^1] The complaint's allegations rest on the State's own statute, and it cites § 43A.191 eight times, including the subd. 3(c) explanation requirement.[^1] The Attorney General certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The record assembled here does not show a ruling on the complaint's allegations. ## Legal context ### Title VII and majority-group plaintiffs In *[[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]]*, 605 U.S. 303 (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 rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^4] ### "Regime" in federal usage The federal 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."[^3] The finding that no other U.S. state has been described this way comes from the project's catalogue. It has not been independently established.[^3] ## Notes [^1]: United States Department of Justice, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII basis; 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) — title of release; Attorney General's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^3]: United States Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — statutory use of "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein"; cited with the project's catalogue finding (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40). 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) — holding on Title VII disparate treatment and rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf