# Magner v. Gallagher *Supreme Court case brought by the City of Saint Paul (certiorari granted November 7, 2011; dismissed February 2012), and the 2013 congressional findings linked to its withdrawal.* **Magner v. Gallagher** was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in which the [[City of St. Paul]], [[Minnesota]], was the petitioner. On November 7, 2011, the Court agreed to hear it on a question under the [[Fair Housing Act]]: "Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?"[^1] The case was dismissed in February 2012. That same month, the federal government declined to intervene in a False Claims Act suit against the City.[^2] A joint congressional staff report released on April 15, 2013 alleges that the Department of Justice agreed not to intervene in two False Claims Act qui tam cases against Saint Paul in exchange for the City withdrawing *Magner* from the Supreme Court.[^3] A DOJ internal email dated March 8, 2012 records the declinations and the withdrawal in the same sentence.[^4] House Oversight Democrats concluded that the Department's officials "acted professionally." The report's finding is contested, and both positions are in the record.[^5] The project located no DOJ Office of Inspector General report on the matter.[^6] ## What The underlying qui tam was *United States ex rel. [[Newell]] v. City of St. Paul*, filed in May 2009. It alleged that the City obtained approximately $62 million in HUD grants from 2003 to 2009 by falsely certifying compliance with [[Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act]] of 1968.[^2] The government declined to intervene in February 2012, the month *Magner* was dismissed. On August 28, 2013, the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of *Newell* on "original source" grounds (No. 12-3894).[^2] A second case, *[[Ellis]] v. City of St. Paul*, has no recoverable public docket number. Its existence rests on the congressional record and the March 2012 internal email.[^6][^4] The joint staff report runs 64 pages. It was released by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Chuck Grassley. Its title is *Department of Justice's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law*, and it is cited by the short form [[DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul]].[^3] The report makes four further allegations: - The [[Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights]] instructed career attorneys to omit any discussion of *Magner* from the declination memoranda. - He insisted that the arrangement not be put in writing. - Career staff described the situation as "weirdness" and "ridiculous." - The relator, Fredrick Newell, was reduced to a "bargaining chip."[^3] The DOJ internal email of March 8, 2012 was reproduced in Senator Grassley's correspondence. It states: "Government declined to intervene in Newell, and has agreed to decline to intervene in Ellis," and continues, "in exchange for defendants withdrawal [sic] of cert. petition in Gallagher case."[^4] House Oversight Democrats issued a minority memorandum after reviewing more than 3,500 pages and conducting six interviews. It concluded that "Mr. Perez and other Department officials acted professionally." It described the investigation as part of "a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against discrimination." An ethics statement by Professor Stephen Gillers was submitted for the minority.[^5] The record does not include an [[Office of Inspector General]] finding on the *Magner*, *Newell* and *Ellis* matter. The March 2013 OIG report cited in the same news cycle concerns the Voting Section and does not address this matter.[^6] ## Who The joint staff report names five people:[^3] - Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division - Fredrick Newell, the relator - Mayor [[Christopher Coleman]], whom the report describes as having accepted the arrangement - Sara Grewing, Saint Paul City Attorney - [[David Lillehaug]], Saint Paul's outside counsel, who negotiated with Perez Witnesses at the May 7, 2013 hearing included Newell, Senator Grassley and Senator Isakson.[^7] ## When - **May 2009**: *Newell* qui tam filed.[^2] - **November 7, 2011**: Supreme Court grants certiorari in *Magner*.[^1] - **February 2012**: The government declines to intervene in *Newell*, and *Magner* is dismissed.[^2] - **March 8, 2012**: The DOJ internal email records the *Newell* declination, the agreement to decline in *Ellis*, and the withdrawal of the *Magner* petition.[^4] - **April 15, 2013**: The joint staff report is released.[^3] - **May 7, 2013**: Joint subcommittee hearing, *DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: A Whistleblower's Perspective*, Rayburn 2154, Serial Nos. 113-23 and 113-6.[^7] - **August 28, 2013**: The Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of *Newell* (No. 12-3894).[^2] ## How much The dossier records three figures: - **As much as $200 million**: the potential recovery forgone, according to the report and the hearing announcement.[^3] - **$86 million**: the DOJ Civil Fraud Section's own valuation of *Newell*.[^3] - **More than $62 million**: the HUD funds the City allegedly certified falsely.[^2][^3] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue record carries two pairs on this case. Both are marked as contested congressional findings. The first pair (AI-Ramsey-004) sets the 2013 report's finding of a declination-for-withdrawal exchange worth as much as $200 million beside a May 2026 White House release on fraud enforcement.[^3][^8] The project's record states that the committee that investigated Saint Paul in 2013 also investigated Minnesota in 2026. That statement rests on the at-issue row, which the pack anchors to the May 2026 release.[^8] The second pair (AI-Ramsey-010) sets the report's allegation of an instruction to leave *Magner* out of the declination memoranda beside a March 2025 presidential action on eliminating information silos.[^3][^9] The minority disputed the report's characterization.[^5] The record shows the sequence. The *Newell* declination and the *Magner* dismissal both came in February 2012. The March 8, 2012 email then joins the declinations and the withdrawal in one sentence.[^2][^4] The congressional finding is contested. The record does not establish an Inspector General finding on the matter.[^5][^6] ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *order granting certiorari in Magner v. Gallagher* (November 7, 2011) — the question presented and the City of Saint Paul as petitioner, as recorded in project history row HE-0212. No URL for the order is in the pack. [^2]: Federal court record, *United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul* (filed May 2009; 8th Cir. No. 12-3894, affirmed August 28, 2013) — the HUD grant allegations, the February 2012 declination in the same month as the *Magner* dismissal, and the affirmance on "original source" grounds, as recorded in validated dossier §V.c. No URL is in the pack. [^3]: House Committee on Oversight, House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member, *Department of Justice's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law* (April 15, 2013) — the 64-page joint staff report's allegations, named persons and dollar figures, as recorded in validated dossier §V.c and at-issue rows AI-Ramsey-004 and AI-Ramsey-010. The report's URL is not in the pack. [^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, *internal email* (March 8, 2012), reproduced in Senator Chuck Grassley's correspondence — the declination and withdrawal language quoted, as recorded in validated dossier §V.c. No URL is in the pack. [^5]: House Oversight Democrats, *minority memorandum* (date not in pack) — the review of more than 3,500 pages and six interviews, its conclusions, and the Gillers ethics statement, as recorded in validated dossier §V.c and at-issue row AI-Ramsey-010. No URL is in the pack. [^6]: Validated dossier §V.c, *negative findings* — no DOJ OIG report on the *Magner*/*Newell*/*Ellis* matter located; the March 2013 OIG report concerns the Voting Section; no public docket number for *Ellis* recoverable. [^7]: U.S. House joint subcommittee hearing, *DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: A Whistleblower's Perspective* (May 7, 2013), Rayburn 2154, Serial Nos. 113-23 and 113-6 — the hearing date and witnesses, as recorded in validated dossier §V.c. No URL is in the pack. [^8]: The White House, *release on the administration's war on fraud* (May 2026) — the anchor source for at-issue pair AI-Ramsey-004. The pack records the pairing, not the release's text. https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/05/trump-administrations-full-scale-war-on-fraud/ [^9]: The White House, *presidential action on stopping waste, fraud, and abuse by eliminating information silos* (March 2025) — the anchor source for at-issue pair AI-Ramsey-010. The pack records the pairing, not the action's text. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/stopping-waste-fraud-and-abuse-by-eliminating-information-silos/