# United States v. City of Minneapolis, 0:25-cv-00048 *Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota over a consent decree on the Minneapolis Police Department, dismissed with prejudice May 27, 2025* *United States v. City of Minneapolis*, No. 0:25-cv-00048 (D. Minn.), concerned a federal consent decree on the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) that the [[City of Minneapolis]] approved.[^1] The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case on May 21, 2025, and Judge [[Paul A. Magnuson]] dismissed it with prejudice on May 27, 2025.[^1] The decree was filed and approved by the City on January 6, 2025.[^1] Less than five months later, the court ended the case and denied the joint motion to approve the decree as moot. The record states that the reforms continue under the City's existing settlement with the [[Minnesota Department of Human Rights]].[^1] ## Parties and instrument The case caption names the United States and the City of Minneapolis as parties. The record describes a joint motion to approve the decree, and it identifies the Justice Department as the party that later moved to dismiss.[^1] The instrument was a federal consent decree on the Minneapolis Police Department, filed and approved by the City on January 6, 2025.[^1] ## Procedural history - **January 6, 2025:** The federal consent decree was filed and approved by the City.[^1] - **May 21, 2025:** The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case.[^1] - **May 27, 2025:** Judge Paul A. Magnuson dismissed the case with prejudice and denied the joint motion to approve the decree as moot.[^1] ## Claims The record does not contain the complaint's allegations. It establishes only the decree's subject, the Minneapolis Police Department, and the court's disposition of the case.[^1] ## Court's reasoning In dismissing the case, Magnuson questioned whether the suit presented a case or controversy.[^1] He described the decree as "superfluous" in light of the City's existing settlement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.[^1] ## Related matters The City's settlement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights is the agreement the court cited. That settlement carries an ELEFA monitor, and the record states that the reforms continue under it.[^1] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who The Justice Department filed the motion to dismiss, and Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered the dismissal with prejudice.[^1] ### When The decree was filed and approved by the City on January 6, 2025. The motion to dismiss followed on May 21, 2025, and the dismissal on May 27, 2025.[^1] ### Why The court questioned whether a case or controversy existed. It treated the decree as "superfluous" given the state settlement.[^1] ### How The court denied the joint motion to approve the decree as moot. Reforms continue under the Minnesota Department of Human Rights settlement.[^1] ## See also - [[Minneapolis]] - [[Minnesota]] ## Notes [^1]: *How Minnesota Got Here* (merged master, footnoted), entry [44], *United States v. City of Minneapolis*, 0:25-cv-00048 (D. Minn.) — establishes the decree's filing and City approval on January 6, 2025; the Justice Department's motion to dismiss of May 21, 2025; Judge Paul A. Magnuson's dismissal with prejudice on May 27, 2025, which denied the joint motion to approve the decree as moot; the court's case-or-controversy question and its "superfluous" finding; and the continuation of the reforms under the Minnesota Department of Human Rights settlement (ELEFA monitor). The entry is marked confirmed against the DOJ dismissal motion, the dismissal order, and Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse case 18178. No URL for this source appears in the pack.