# SF 2603 Affirmative action goals in public contracts rulemaking requirement *Minnesota legislative measure on a rulemaking requirement for affirmative-action goals in public contracts* **SF 2603** is a [[Minnesota]] legislative measure. As its title states, it concerns a rulemaking requirement for [[Affirmative action]] goals in public contracts.[^1] The record for this entry does not establish its sponsors, legislative session, votes, enactment status, statutory codification or text. It therefore does not show which party or administration enacted, amended or maintained it.[^1] The entry sits within a wider federal dispute over Minnesota's affirmative-action provisions. On January 14, 2026, the [[United States Department of Justice]] sued the State under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] in a case concerning the State's affirmative-action hiring statute.[^2][^3] The record does not show whether that complaint addresses SF 2603 or any public-contracting provision.[^3] ## Federal action on Minnesota affirmative-action provisions The Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs announced the suit in release No. 26-21, dated January 14, 2026. The release is titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^2] According to the release, Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The complaint in [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] was filed in the District of Minnesota on January 14, 2026, under Title VII.[^3] It cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times. Among those citations is subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain its reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^3] The record assembled for this entry does not include a later docket entry or a ruling on the merits.[^3] The federal government has used the word "regime" before. 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."[^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 conclusion is the project's catalogue finding.[^4][^2] The suit followed the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in [[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]], 605 U.S. 303. There the Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs."[^5] The Court also rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^5] ## Notes [^1]: English Wikipedia, *SF 2603 Affirmative action goals in public contracts rulemaking requirement* (retrieved 26 October 2026) — title and subject of the measure only; no section text in the cached page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SF_2603_Affirmative_action_goals_in_public_contracts_rulemaking_requirement [^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) — release title; filing date; 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]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, Complaint (filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII basis; eight citations of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^4]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — statutory use of "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein." https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^5]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — holding on Title VII disparate-treatment claims by majority-group plaintiffs; rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf