# United States v. State of Minnesota (0-26-cv-04123) *A civil action filed by the United States against the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Paul in the District of Minnesota, docketed September 24, 2026.* *United States v. State of Minnesota*, docket 0:26-cv-04123, is a civil action the United States filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 24, 2026.[^1] The complaint names three defendants: the State of Minnesota, the [[City of Minneapolis]] and the [[City of St. Paul]].[^1] The docket classifies the nature of suit as "440 Civil Rights: Other" and records the cause as "34:12601 Police Pattern or Practice Cause of Action." The jurisdiction type is listed as "U.S. Government Plaintiff."[^1] The clerk assigned the case to Judge [[Katherine M. Menendez]] and referred it to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko under case number 26-cv-4123 KMM/DLM.[^2] All three defendants were served on September 29, 2026. The magistrate judge later extended their deadline to answer or otherwise respond to November 10, 2026.[^4][^6] The docket entries in the record run through October 7, 2026. They show no answer, no dispositive motion and no ruling on the merits.[^1] The action is separate from two earlier 2026 federal suits against the State that share the same caption. No. 0:26-cv-00273 is a [[Title VII]] challenge to state hiring law.[^8] No. 0:26-cv-02078 is a [[Title IX]] action.[^14] Each has its own docket. ## Parties and instrument The plaintiff is the United States. The complaint was entered on the docket by Mark Hellie.[^1] Pro hac vice admission was sought for three attorneys the docket describes as "U.S. Government Attorney": Barry K. Arrington, Keith W. Gaines and Peter J. Abernathy.[^3] Gaines, Arrington and Abernathy each later filed a notice of appearance for the United States.[^7] The State of Minnesota first appeared on September 30, 2026, through Christy L. Hall and Mara Sybesma. Lindsey E. Middlecamp appeared for the State on October 5.[^5] Three attorneys appeared for the City of Minneapolis on October 5: Heather Passe Robertson, Michael Andrew Brey and Antonia Konkoly.[^5] Aaron Winter and Alexander Hsu appeared for the City of St. Paul on October 6.[^5] The docket identifies the statutory cause of action only in its title-and-section form, "34:12601," with the label "Police Pattern or Practice Cause of Action."[^1] The complaint's text is not in the record compiled for this article. The record therefore does not identify which police department, policy or practice the complaint places at issue. ## Procedural history - **September 24, 2026.** The United States filed the complaint against the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul and the State of Minnesota, with a civil cover sheet. Summonses issued the same day.[^1] - **September 24, 2026.** Motions were filed for pro hac vice admission of Arrington, Gaines and Abernathy.[^3] The clerk's notice assigned the case to Judge Menendez from the civil-rights list and referred it to Magistrate Judge Micko.[^2] - **September 25, 2026.** Gaines filed a notice of appearance for the United States.[^7] - **September 28, 2026.** Magistrate Judge Micko approved Gaines's pro hac vice admission.[^3] - **September 29, 2026.** All three defendants were served. The return of service set each answer due on October 20, 2026.[^4] - **September 30, 2026.** Hall and Sybesma appeared for the State of Minnesota.[^5] - **October 1 and October 2, 2026.** The magistrate judge approved the pro hac vice admissions of Abernathy (October 1) and Arrington (October 2).[^3] - **October 5, 2026.** Counsel for the City of Minneapolis and additional counsel for the State appeared.[^5] The three defendants filed a consent motion to extend their time to answer, with a proposed order.[^6] - **October 6, 2026.** Magistrate Judge Micko found good cause and ordered the defendants to answer or otherwise respond by November 10, 2026.[^6] The same day, counsel appeared for the City of St. Paul, and Arrington appeared for the United States.[^5][^7] - **October 7, 2026.** Abernathy filed a notice of appearance for the United States. This is the latest numbered docket entry in the record.[^7] ## Claims The docket describes the claim as a police pattern-or-practice cause of action brought by the United States in a civil-rights case.[^1] The counts of the complaint are not in the record. The record does not establish: - what conduct the complaint alleges; - how the allegations are divided among the State and the two cities; - what relief the United States seeks. ## State position As of October 7, 2026, the State of Minnesota's filings consist of notices of appearance and the joint consent motion for an extension of time.[^5][^6] The record carries no State filing on the merits. The State's response was due by November 10, 2026.[^6] ## Related matters ### No. 0:26-cv-00273 (Title VII) The United States sued the State on January 14, 2026, in *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.).[^8][^9] The suit is brought under Title VII of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and challenges [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]].[^8] The complaint is a pattern-or-practice action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the mechanism for Attorney General suits.[^8][^13] It cites § 43A.191 eight times, including subdivision 3(c). That subdivision requires an agency to explain its reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^8][^12] DHS Policy 4100.250 was filed as an exhibit.[^10] At paragraph 54, the complaint alleges that Minnesota "identifies no prior or present discrimination to justify its race- and sex-conscious employment policies."[^8] A complaint states allegations, not adjudicated facts. The [[United States Department of Justice]] announced the suit in release No. 26-21, titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*. The release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^9] The federal government has used the same term elsewhere. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338) states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^11] 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.[^11] The case is before a three-judge district court, with direct appeal to the Supreme Court:[^10] - Circuit Judge [[Raymond W. Gruender]]; - Chief Judge [[Patrick J. Schiltz]]; - Judge [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] The State's response was due February 27, 2026, and the case was ongoing as of the record's sources.[^10][^17] ### No. 0:26-cv-02078 (Title IX) On March 30, 2026, the United States filed a Title IX action, No. 0:26-cv-02078 (D. Minn.).[^14][^15] The defendants are the [[Minnesota Department of Education]] and the [[Minnesota State High School League]], and the case is assigned to Judge [[Eric C. Tostrud]].[^14] The Department of Justice announced the suit in release No. 26-299.[^15] Separately, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, through their offices for civil rights, issued Title IX findings concerning Minnesota.[^16] ## See also - [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] - [[United States v. Minnesota]] - [[Minnesota Statutes]] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, docket header and entry #1 (CourtListener, filed Sept. 24, 2026; entries through Oct. 7, 2026) — establishes the filing date, the three defendants, the nature of suit, the cause of action, the U.S.-government-plaintiff jurisdiction type and the issuance of summonses. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^2]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, entry #5, *Clerk's Notice of Initial Case Assignment* (Sept. 24, 2026) — establishes the assignment to Judge Katherine M. Menendez, the referral to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko and the case number 26-cv-4123 KMM/DLM. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^3]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, entries #2–#4, #8, #11, #12 (Sept. 24–Oct. 2, 2026) — establishes the pro hac vice motions for Arrington, Gaines and Abernathy and the orders approving them on Sept. 28, Oct. 1 and Oct. 2, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^4]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, entry #22, *Summons Returned Executed* (Oct. 6, 2026) — establishes service on all three defendants on Sept. 29, 2026, with answers due Oct. 20, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^5]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, entries #9, #10, #13–#16, #23, #24 (Sept. 30–Oct. 6, 2026) — establishes the appearances of counsel for the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Paul. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^6]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, entries #17, #18, #21 (Oct. 5–6, 2026) — establishes the defendants' consent motion for extension and the order of Magistrate Judge Micko setting Nov. 10, 2026, as the response deadline. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^7]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-04123, entries #7, #19, #20, #25 (Sept. 25–Oct. 7, 2026) — establishes the notices of appearance of Gaines, Arrington and Abernathy for the United States. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^8]: 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) — establishes the Title VII pattern-or-practice claim, the eight citations of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 including subd. 3(c), and the allegation at ¶ 54. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^9]: 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) — establishes the release title and the 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 [^10]: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, case 47712 (accessed 2026) — establishes the three-judge panel of Gruender, Schiltz and Marshall, the direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the State's Feb. 27, 2026 response date, and DHS Policy 4100.250 as an exhibit. https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/ [^11]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (Oct. 31, 1998) — establishes the statutory phrase "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein"; the catalogue finding is the project's own (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^12]: Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, *Minnesota Statutes § 43A.191, Agency Affirmative Action Programs* (current) — establishes the statute text, including subd. 3(c). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/43A.191 [^13]: Legal Information Institute, *42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6* (current) — establishes the Attorney General's pattern-or-practice cause of action under Title VII. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-6 [^14]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-02078 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 30, 2026) — establishes the Title IX action and its filing date. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1433251/dl [^15]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Justice Department Sues Minnesota to Protect Girls' Sports and Intimate Spaces*, release No. 26-299 (Mar. 30, 2026) — establishes DOJ's announcement of the Title IX suit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-protect-girls-sports-and-intimate-spaces [^16]: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Offices for Civil Rights, *Minnesota Title IX Findings* (2026) — establishes the agencies' Title IX findings concerning Minnesota. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ed-hhs-minnesota-title-ix-findings-112441.pdf [^17]: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, docket (CourtListener) — establishes the docket of the Title VII action. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72142517/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/