# Hiring Justification Policy *A written Minnesota Department of Human Services hiring procedure that is the subject of a pending federal Title VII lawsuit.* The **Hiring Justification Policy** is a written personnel procedure of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). The project's validated case record calls it the DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy. A signed copy is filed as Exhibit B in *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]*.[^1] The [[United States Department of Justice]] complaint in that case cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times. It includes the requirement in subdivision 3(c) that an agency explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] The exhibit carries the "non-underrepresented candidate" language.[^1] The Department of Justice announced the suit on January 14, 2026, 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*.[^2] Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The term "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime" is the United States' own description of the State's apparatus.[^2] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages finds no other U.S. state so described. That is the project's catalogue finding, not an independently established fact.[^2] ## Who The plaintiff is the United States, acting through the Department of Justice.[^1] Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The defendant is the State of [[Minnesota]]. The challenged instrument is a signed DHS policy.[^1] According to the project's validated case record, refreshed June 18, 2026, the case is before a three-judge district court.[^1] The panel is Circuit Judge [[Raymond W. Gruender]], Chief Judge [[Patrick J. Schiltz]] of the District of Minnesota, and Judge [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] of the Eastern District of Arkansas. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins was assigned after a recusal.[^1] The record assembled for this article does not show who enacted, amended or maintained § 43A.191 or the DHS policy, by party and date. For that reason, no party attribution is stated here.[^1] ## What The complaint is brought under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], §§ 703(a)(1) and (a)(2).[^1] It challenges the DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy. The complaint relies on the statute it quotes and on the signed agency policy filed as Exhibit B.[^1] The statutory text the complaint cites requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^1] The project's validated record describes the claim as pleaded through *Bostock* textualism.[^1] The complaint alleges that the policy violates Title VII. The court has made no finding on that allegation.[^1] ## When On January 21, 2025, Executive Order 14173 revoked [[Executive Order 11246]], the federal predicate on which the State's affirmative-action architecture had previously rested.[^3] On January 14, 2026, the United States filed the complaint in the District of Minnesota, and the Department of Justice issued release No. 26-21.[^1][^2] The State's response was due February 27, 2026.[^1] As of the project record refreshed June 18, 2026, the case was ongoing.[^1] ## Where The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under docket No. 0:26-cv-00273.[^1] The challenged policy is a DHS instrument. The statute the complaint cites, § 43A.191, is part of Minnesota's state-employment law.[^1] ## Why The complaint was filed after the 2025 revocation of Executive Order 11246.[^3] The suit therefore proceeds under Title VII rather than under the executive-order framework that had previously underpinned the architecture.[^1] The record documents the legal grounds the complaint pleads. It does not document the State's reasons for adopting the policy.[^1] ## How The policy operates as a signed, written form. Under it, an agency records a justification when it hires a candidate the policy describes as non-underrepresented.[^1] Because the procedure is written down, the federal government could attach it to the complaint as an exhibit and quote its operative language back to the State.[^1] Beyond the subdivision 3(c) requirement and the exhibit's language, the record does not detail the procedure step by step.[^1] ## How many The complaint cites § 43A.191 eight times.[^1] The project's validated master lists eleven federal actions involving Minnesota, with captions and dates read from the filed complaints. The list includes 0:26-cv-00273 (Title VII, January 14, 2026).[^1] A parallel federal matter followed a different course. On May 5, 2025, the Civil Rights Division opened DOJ 25-469, an investigation of the [[Hennepin County Attorney's Office]].[^4] The investigation concerned that office's *Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants*, effective April 28, 2025.[^5] According to the project's case record, the investigation closed in February 2026 after the policy was amended. The record notes that closure does not foreclose private remedies.[^4] ## In the at-issue record An at-issue row in the project file (AI-Stearns-024) notes that the Department of Justice's public announcement names a "Hiring Justification Policy" rather than citing § 43A.191 by section number.[^2] The row records as unconfirmed whether the challenged policy is grounded in that statute.[^2] The filed complaint ranks above that row. The project's validated reading of the complaint records eight citations of § 43A.191, including subdivision 3(c).[^1] The at-issue row's uncertainty therefore concerns the announcement, not the complaint. The White House presidential action revoking the earlier executive-order framework is the row's anchor.[^3] ## In the Minnesota record ### What - *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn., filed January 14, 2026), is brought under Title VII. It cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c).[^1] - The operative exhibit is the signed DHS [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]], filed as Exhibit B. It contains the "[[Non-underrepresented candidate]]" language.[^1] - Release No. 26-21 announced the case under the title *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^2] ## Notes [^1]: 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 action, §§ 703(a)(1), (a)(2); cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c); DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy as Exhibit B. Panel, response date and status are as recorded in the project's validated master, refreshed 2026-06-18. 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) — announces the suit; Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified it as a matter of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^3]: The White House, *Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity*, presidential action (January 2025) — the January 2025 order recorded in the project file as Executive Order 14173, revoking Executive Order 11246. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/ [^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *U.S. Department of Justice Announces Civil Rights Investigation into Consideration of Race in Prosecutorial Decisions* (May 5, 2025) — opening of DOJ 25-469 into the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. Closure status is as recorded in the project's case record. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-announces-civil-rights-investigation-consideration-race-prosecutorial [^5]: Hennepin County Attorney's Office, *Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants* (eff. Apr. 28, 2025) — the policy examined in DOJ 25-469. https://kstp.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Negotiation-Policy-for-Cases-Involving-Adult-Defendants.pdf