# Raymond W. Gruender *United States circuit judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; member of the three-judge district court in* United States v. State of Minnesota *(D. Minn.)* Raymond William Gruender (born 1963) sits on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]] and has held his commission since June 5, 2004.[^1] Before that he was the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri.[^1] In the [[Minnesota]] record he appears in two official capacities. He is one of three judges on the district court hearing [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]], No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn., filed January 14, 2026). That case is the United States' [[Title VII]] challenge to the Minnesota Department of Human Services hiring and [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]].[^2] He also wrote the Eighth Circuit panel opinion in [[Female Athletes United v. Ellison]], No. 25-2899 (filed April 15, 2026), which affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction.[^3] The federal case came before a three-judge court because the Attorney General certified it as one of "general public importance" under Title VII. That posture also opens a direct appeal route to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].[^4] ## Who ### Early career Gruender is a native of St. Louis, Missouri. He completed St. Louis University High School in 1981.[^1] At Washington University in St. Louis and its law school he took three degrees: a B.A., a J.D. and an M.B.A.[^1] He practiced at Lewis, Rice & Fingersh from 1987 until 1990. In 1990 he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri as an assistant.[^1] In 1994 he challenged the sitting St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney and lost. He then moved to private practice at Thompson Coburn, and in 1996 he ran Bob Dole's presidential campaign in Missouri.[^1] He went back to the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2000. From 2001 he led that office as United States Attorney until he joined the Eighth Circuit in 2004.[^1] ### Federal judicial service President George W. Bush nominated Gruender on September 29, 2003, to the Eighth Circuit seat left open by Judge Pasco Bowman II.[^1] The [[United States Senate]] acted almost eight months later. On May 20, 2004, it confirmed him by 97 votes to 1, with Senator Tom Harkin casting the only vote against.[^1] His commission is dated June 5, 2004.[^1] On May 18, 2016, Donald Trump, then a Republican candidate for president, announced that Gruender was on his list of possible Supreme Court nominees.[^1] ### Opinions In *In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation*, No. 06-1706, Gruender wrote for the court. The opinion held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 conferred on female employees no entitlement to insurance coverage of contraceptives used only to prevent pregnancy.[^1] In *Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds*, No. 05-3093, a panel majority upheld an injunction against a South Dakota informed-consent statute directed at abortion providers. Gruender dissented. When the full court reheard the case in 2008, it held 7–4, in an opinion he wrote, that the statute was constitutional on its face.[^1] In *Little Rock School District v. North Little Rock School District*, No. 04-2923 (2006), he dissented from a panel decision. That decision affirmed the district court's ruling that federal desegregation monitoring of the Little Rock district should continue. The majority had agreed with the district court that the district had not adequately evaluated how its academic programs served black students.[^1] ## When - September 29, 2003: nominated to the Eighth Circuit.[^1] - May 20, 2004: confirmed by the Senate, 97–1.[^1] - June 5, 2004: commissioned.[^1] - May 18, 2016: named on a presidential candidate's list of possible Supreme Court nominees.[^1] - January 14, 2026: *United States v. State of Minnesota* filed in the District of Minnesota.[^2] - April 15, 2026: Eighth Circuit opinion filed in *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*.[^3] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue entry AI-Dakota-074 makes the following record.[^4] - The Attorney General certified *United States v. State of Minnesota* as one of "general public importance" under Title VII. - The certification convened a three-judge trial panel of Gruender, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz and Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. - It also opened a direct appeal route to the Supreme Court of the United States. The entry concludes that "the ordinary appellate ladder was removed from under Minnesota's hiring statute."[^4] It anchors that conclusion to the January 2025 Executive Order *Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity*. Its reason for the anchor is that "the procedural posture is itself the measure of how the United States rates the question".[^4][^6] The record does not state the Attorney General's reasons beyond the certification itself.[^4] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who In the Title VII case, Gruender sits as the circuit judge on a three-judge district court.[^2] In *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, he wrote for an Eighth Circuit panel that also included Judges Erickson and Grasz.[^3] ### What **The Title VII case.** The complaint in *United States v. State of Minnesota* alleges that the Minnesota DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy violates Title VII §§703(a)(1) and (a)(2).[^5] The United States filed the signed agency policy as the operative Exhibit B, which contains the "non-underrepresented candidate" language (see [[Non-underrepresented candidate]]).[^5] Prior validation of the complaint found that it cites [[§43A.191]] eight times.[^5] The court is made up of three judges:[^2] - Circuit Judge Gruender; - Chief Judge [[Patrick J. Schiltz]] of the District of Minnesota; - Judge [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] of the Eastern District of Arkansas. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins was assigned after Foster's recusal.[^2] The State's response was due February 27, 2026. As of the record's June 18, 2026 refresh, the case was ongoing.[^2] **The Title IX case.** In *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, Gruender's panel affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to Female Athletes United (FAU).[^3] The panel held that FAU had standing. Its member "Athlete 1" faced a scheduled game against the transgender athlete.[^3] But the panel also held that [[Title IX]] supplies a private right of action only for intentional sex discrimination. It reached that result by applying [[Alexander v. Sandoval]], 532 U.S. 275 (2001), through [[Cannon v. University of Chicago]], 441 U.S. 677 (1979).[^3] The panel found that FAU's ineffective-accommodation and unequal-treatment claims "sound in disparate impact," for which there is no private right of action.[^3] FAU had conceded at argument: "we don't contest that there is no disparate impact claim under Title IX".[^3] The panel added two further points:[^3] - executive guidance and agency findings "do not reflect settled law"; - whether Title IX permits transgender participation "remains an open question of law." On the second point it noted the pending *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, No. 24-43, and [[Little v. Hecox]], No. 24-38.[^3] The record's annotation corrects an earlier characterization drawn from the Minnesota Attorney General's press release. FAU lost on the private right of action, not on standing; the panel affirmed standing.[^3] ### When - January 21, 2025: [[Executive Order 11246]] revoked by Executive Order 14173.[^5] - January 14, 2026: the United States filed its complaint after that revocation.[^5] - February 27, 2026: the State's response was due.[^2] - April 15, 2026: the *Female Athletes United* opinion was filed.[^3] ### Where The Title VII case is in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The out-of-district members of its three-judge court come from the Eighth Circuit and the Eastern District of Arkansas.[^2] *Female Athletes United v. Ellison* was decided in the Eighth Circuit.[^3] ### How The United States pleads its Title VII claims through *Bostock* textualism, with the agency's signed policy as the operative exhibit.[^5] The Attorney General's certification of "general public importance" is the step that convened the three-judge court and the direct route to the Supreme Court.[^4] ## Notes [^1]: Wikipedia contributors, *Raymond W. Gruender* (revision 1373534637, retrieved October 26, 2026) — birth, education, prior practice and prosecutorial career, nomination (September 29, 2003), confirmation (97–1, May 20, 2004), commission (June 5, 2004), the *Union Pacific*, *Rounds* and *Little Rock* opinions, and the May 18, 2016 list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_W._Gruender [^2]: Clearinghouse, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 14, 2026) — docket, filing date, composition of the three-judge district court, magistrate assignment, response deadline and pending status (record refreshed June 18, 2026). https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/ [^3]: *How Minnesota Got Here* (merged master, footnoted), note 43 — validated summary of the Eighth Circuit opinion in *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (filed Apr. 15, 2026), fetched verbatim from the opinion; the pack's allowed sources carry no URL for the opinion. [^4]: Clearinghouse, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.), as summarized in *Dakota Claims Exposure Matrix* (Sept. 2, 2026), at-issue entry AI-Dakota-074 — the Attorney General's certification of "general public importance" under Title VII, the convening of the three-judge court, and the direct appeal route. https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/ [^5]: Clearinghouse, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.), as summarized in *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified, June 18, 2026), note 53 — the complaint's Title VII §§703(a)(1), (a)(2) claims, *Bostock* pleading, Exhibit B, eight citations of §43A.191, and filing after the revocation of EO 11246 by EO 14173. https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/ [^6]: The White House, *Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity* (Presidential Action, January 2025) — the executive order cited as the anchor of at-issue entry AI-Dakota-074. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/