# Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act *Provision of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 whose certified compliance was at issue in a False Claims Act qui tam against the City of Saint Paul.* Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 enters the Minnesota record through one matter, *United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul*. That False Claims Act qui tam was filed in May 2009. It alleged that the [[City of St. Paul]] obtained approximately $62 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) between 2003 and 2009 by falsely certifying compliance with Section 3.[^1] The record assembled here does not include the text of Section 3, and this article does not describe its requirements.[^1] The United States declined to intervene in February 2012. In the same month, the City's certiorari petition in *Magner* was withdrawn and the case was dismissed. On August 28, 2013, the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the qui tam on "original source" grounds (No. 12-3894).[^1] On April 15, 2013, a 64-page joint congressional staff report alleged that the Department of Justice agreed to decline intervention in two qui tam cases against Saint Paul in exchange for the City's withdrawal of *Magner*.[^2] The dossier records the congressional finding as contested. A memorandum issued by [[House Oversight]] Democrats concluded that "Mr. Perez and other Department officials acted professionally."[^3] ## Who - Fredrick Newell: relator in the *Newell* qui tam.[^1] He testified as a witness at the May 7, 2013 joint subcommittee hearing, which was titled as a [[Whistleblower]]'s perspective. Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Johnny Isakson also appeared as witnesses.[^4] - Thomas E. Perez: Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. The staff report names him and alleges that he instructed career attorneys to omit any discussion of *Magner* from the declination memoranda.[^2] - [[Christopher Coleman]]: Mayor of Saint Paul. The report names him as having accepted the arrangement.[^2] - Sara Grewing: Saint Paul City Attorney, named in the report.[^2] - [[David Lillehaug]]: Saint Paul's outside counsel. The report names him as having negotiated with Perez.[^2] - Darrell Issa, Bob Goodlatte and Chuck Grassley: they released the joint staff report. Issa was House Oversight Chairman, Goodlatte was House Judiciary Chairman, and Grassley was Senate Judiciary Ranking Member.[^2] - House Oversight Democrats: they issued the minority memorandum. The record assembled here states a party affiliation only for the minority memorandum's authors.[^3] ## What Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 is the provision whose certified compliance the [[Newell]] case put at issue. The case was a False Claims Act qui tam alleging false certification in connection with HUD grants to Saint Paul.[^1] The congressional report also refers to a second qui tam against the City, [[Ellis]]. No public docket number for *Ellis v. City of St. Paul* is recoverable. Its existence rests on the congressional record and a quoted DOJ internal email.[^5] The record does not establish the statute's enforcement history or the result of any HUD compliance review of the City.[^1] ## When - 2003–2009: the period in which the City allegedly obtained approximately $62 million in HUD grants through false certifications of Section 3 compliance.[^1] - May 2009: *United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul* filed.[^1] - February 2012: the government declined to intervene in *Newell*. In the same month, *Magner* was dismissed.[^1] - March 8, 2012: date of the DOJ internal email later reproduced in Senator Grassley's correspondence.[^6] - April 15, 2013: the joint staff report was released.[^2] - May 7, 2013: the joint subcommittee hearing was held (Serial Nos. 113-23 and 113-6).[^4] - August 28, 2013: the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of *Newell* (No. 12-3894).[^1] ## Where - Saint Paul, Minnesota: the municipality whose HUD grants and Section 3 certifications are at issue.[^1] - Rayburn 2154: the room in which the May 7, 2013 joint subcommittee hearing was held.[^4] ## How The documented sequence runs from the qui tam allegation to the declination, then to the congressional inquiry.[^1] The March 8, 2012 DOJ internal email states: "Government declined to intervene in Newell, and has agreed to decline to intervene in Ellis, in exchange for defendants withdrawal [sic] of cert. petition in Gallagher case."[^6] The joint staff report is titled *Department of Justice's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law*. It alleges that career staff described the situation as "weirdness" and "ridiculous." It also alleges that Newell was reduced to a "bargaining chip."[^2] The May 7, 2013 hearing was titled *DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: A Whistleblower's Perspective*. It is catalogued here as [[DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul]].[^4] The House Oversight Democrats' memorandum found that Perez and other officials acted professionally. It characterized the investigation as part of "a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against discrimination." An ethics statement by Prof. Stephen Gillers was submitted for the minority.[^3] No DOJ [[Office of Inspector General]] report on the *Magner*/*Newell*/*Ellis* matter was located. A March 2013 OIG report concerns the Voting Section and does not address this matter.[^5] The record does not establish which account of the declination is correct.[^2][^3] ## How much - More than $62 million: HUD funds the qui tam alleged were obtained between 2003 and 2009 through false certifications of Section 3 compliance.[^7] - $86 million: the DOJ Civil Fraud Section's own valuation of *Newell*.[^7] - As much as $200 million: potential recovery that the report and the hearing announcement describe as forgone.[^7] ## How many - 2: the False Claims Act qui tam cases against Saint Paul, *Newell* and *Ellis*, in which the report alleges intervention was declined.[^2] - 64: pages in the April 15, 2013 joint staff report.[^2] - 3,500 or more pages and six interviews: the review on which the House Oversight Democrats based their memorandum.[^3] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue pair AI-Ramsey-007 (rank 7, in the tier headed "TIER I — THE DOCTRINAL SPINE (Pairs 1–20)") records the *Newell* allegation and the February 2012 declination. The pair is keyed to a March 2025 White House presidential action as its federal anchor.[^8] The pair lists two source kinds, court and report, drawn from law.justia.com and oversight.house.gov. Neither underlying URL is supplied in this record.[^1] ## Notes [^1]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — summary of *United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul* (filed May 2009): the $62 million / 2003–2009 allegation, the February 2012 declination, and the Eighth Circuit affirmance of August 28, 2013 (No. 12-3894). The dossier's source URL (its note [21]) is not supplied in the pack. [^2]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — the April 15, 2013 joint staff report of Issa, Goodlatte and Grassley, its allegations, and the persons it names. The dossier's source URLs (its notes [5], [6]) are not supplied in the pack. [^3]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — the House Oversight Democrats' minority memorandum and the Gillers ethics statement. The dossier's source URL (its note [23]) is not supplied in the pack. [^4]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — the May 7, 2013 joint subcommittee hearing, Rayburn 2154, Serial Nos. 113-23 and 113-6, and its witnesses. The dossier's source URL (its note [22]) is not supplied in the pack. [^5]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — the negative findings: no OIG report on the matter was located, and no public docket number for *Ellis* is recoverable. The dossier's source URLs (its notes [24], [6], [20]) are not supplied in the pack. [^6]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — text of the March 8, 2012 DOJ internal email reproduced in Senator Grassley's correspondence. The dossier's source URL (its note [20]) is not supplied in the pack. [^7]: Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier, *§V.c The congressional finding* (2026-09-02, validated) — the dollar figures as documented in the report and the hearing announcement ($62 million, $86 million, $200 million). The dossier's source URLs (its notes [5], [6]) are not supplied in the pack. [^8]: The White House, *Protecting America's Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse* (March 2025) — the presidential action to which at-issue pair AI-Ramsey-007 is anchored. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/protecting-americas-bank-account-against-fraud-waste-and-abuse/