# Patrick Schiltz *Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; member of the three-judge court in United States v. State of Minnesota, 0:26-cv-00273.* Patrick J. Schiltz is Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.[^1] He sits on the three-judge district court hearing [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]], the [[Title VII]] action the United States filed against the State of Minnesota on January 14, 2026.[^1] The other two judges are Circuit Judge [[Raymond W. Gruender]] and Judge [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] of the Eastern District of Arkansas.[^1] The complaint pleads §§ 703(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Title VII against the Minnesota DHS [[Pre-Hire Justification policy|Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy]]. It cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times, according to the project's prior validation.[^1] A project dossier describes the action as a Title VII challenge to § 43A.191 itself.[^2] The same dossier records that the matter is certified as a matter of general public importance before a three-judge court. On that track the losing party appeals directly to the Supreme Court.[^2] The record shows the panel's membership, the filing date and the case's status. It does not show any ruling by the panel or by Schiltz.[^1][^2] ## Who The three-judge district court consists of 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.[^1] Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins is assigned to the case after Foster's recusal.[^1] ## What The complaint alleges that the Minnesota DHS hiring policy violates Title VII and pleads the claim through *Bostock* textualism.[^1] It files the signed agency policy as the operative Exhibit B, which contains the "non-underrepresented candidate" language (see [[Non-underrepresented candidate]]).[^1] The United States brought the action after Executive Order 14173 (January 21, 2025) revoked [[Executive Order 11246]].[^1] These are the complaint's allegations. The record here contains no finding on them.[^1] ## When - January 14, 2026: the United States files the complaint in the District of Minnesota.[^1] - February 27, 2026: the State's response is due.[^1] - June 18, 2026: the case is ongoing as of the source's refresh date.[^1] - The dossier records certification as a matter of general public importance, with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. It gives no date for the certification.[^2] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue pair 54 (AI-Ramsey-054) names the panel as Gruender, Schiltz and Marshall. It states that certification as a matter of general public importance sends the loser's appeal directly to the Supreme Court.[^2] The pair is anchored to the executive order *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy*, issued April 23, 2025.[^3] The dossier lists that order as EO 14281. It records that the order directs federal agencies to deprioritize disparate-impact enforcement and orders the repeal or amendment of [[Title VI]] implementing regulations.[^3][^2] The dossier places the case on a doctrinal line it traces through several decisions:[^2] - *[[Griggs]]*, 401 U.S. 424 (March 8, 1971), decided 8–0 in an opinion by Warren Burger. - *Fullilove*, 448 U.S. 448 (July 2, 1980), a Burger plurality that permitted a federal race-conscious remedy. - *Adarand* (1995), which the dossier records as applying strict scrutiny to federal set-asides and displacing *Fullilove*. The pair describes § 43A.191 as implementing *Fullilove*'s permission and says it now has a one-step path back to the Supreme Court. That characterization is the project's framing, not a finding of any court.[^2] The dossier lists two other federal actions against the State in the same period:[^2] - *[[United States v. Simon]]*, 0:25-cv-03761, filed September 25, 2025, concerning voter rolls under HAVA and the NVRA. - *United States v. Minnesota Dep't of Education*, 0:26-cv-02078, filed March 30, 2026, under [[Title IX]]. The record does not show any role for Schiltz in either matter.[^2] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who - Patrick J. Schiltz is Chief Judge of the District of Minnesota. He is one of the three judges on the court hearing *United States v. State of Minnesota*, 0:26-cv-00273.[^1] - The panel is Gruender, Schiltz and Marshall, with Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins assigned after Foster's recusal.[^1] ## Notes [^1]: *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified, 2026-06-18), note [53] — summarizes *United States v. State of Minnesota*, 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 14, 2026). It covers the Title VII §§ 703(a)(1), (a)(2) counts against the Minnesota DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy and Exhibit B. It also records the three-judge court, the response date of Feb. 27, 2026, and the eight citations of § 43A.191. The passage is marked primary-confirmed (justice.gov/crt; clearinghouse.net case 47712; CourtListener 72142517), but no URL for those sources is in the allowed list. Validated pack passage. [^2]: *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* (2026-09-02), §IX — gives the doctrinal timeline and the docket listings. It records the 0:26-cv-00273 matter as certified as a matter of general public importance before a three-judge court (Gruender, Schiltz, Marshall), with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Validated dossier section; the certification itself is not checked here against a filed order. [^3]: The White House, *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy* (Apr. 23, 2025) — the presidential action anchoring at-issue pair 54. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/