The Justice Department has sued the State of Minnesota over a policy that requires state agencies to adopt race- and sex-based hiring goals, arguing those rules violate federal employment law and force preferences that disadvantage other applicants.
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenging a statewide mandate that directs agencies to adopt affirmative action plans and to consider “affirmative action goals on all staffing and personnel decisions.” The state policy instructs agencies to take employment actions that “balance” the sex and race composition of their workforce with the civilian labor force.
The complaint says Minnesota’s system classifies and limits employees and applicants on the basis of race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the government’s view, treating hiring as a race- or sex-based balancing act inevitably creates winners and losers, and that is precisely the harm Title VII forbids.
“Because staffing is a zero-sum game,” the complaint states, “when Minnesota gives preferences to employees or prospective employees on the basis of their race, color, national origin, and sex, it inevitably and necessarily discriminates against other employees or prospective employees because of their race, color, national origin, and sex.” That sentence lies at the heart of the Justice Department’s legal theory in the case.
The filing argues that older Supreme Court allowances for limited consideration of race and sex in hiring for “traditionally segregated job categories” do not square with Title VII’s plain text or with more recent high court decisions. The Justice Department frames this as a straightforward enforcement action: federal civil rights law protects all workers from being sorted by immutable characteristics.
“From suing over sanctuary city policies to a wide-ranging fraud investigation, today’s lawsuit is the Department of Justice’s latest effort to bring Minnesota into compliance with federal law,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Making hiring decisions based on immutable characteristics like race and sex is simple discrimination, and the Trump Administration has no tolerance for such DEI policies.”
“For far too long, courts have allowed employers to discriminate based on race and sex when it is packaged as ‘affirmative action,’” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Supreme Court put an end to using race as a factor in college admissions through its Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. This case is the next logical step. Title VII protects all people from race and sex discrimination in employment. There is no exception that allows discrimination against employees who aren’t considered ‘underrepresented.’”
The United States also certified the case as one of general public importance, invoking the Title VII mechanism that sends the matter to a three-judge district court and allows a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That procedural move signals the federal government expects a speedy, high-stakes resolution rather than a slow path through the ordinary appeals ladder.
“Minnesotans already had to see their state officials let criminals brazenly walk off with over a billion taxpayer dollars,” said U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen for the District of Minnesota. “Now they see those same officials abusing their power by systematically and unlawfully branding jobseekers as the wrong race or sex. The United States Attorney General and the Justice Department are on the side of Minnesotans and have stepped in to hold the State accountable.”
Complaint – Us v State of Minnesota by scott.mcclallen
