What specific Minnesota hiring policies is the DOJ challenging?

The DOJ challenges Minnesota's directives to set numerical race and sex hiring goals, track underutilization, require prehire justification forms for non-underrepresented candidates, and DHS sign-offs and interview mandates for underrepresented candidates.

What federal law does the DOJ claim Minnesota is violating?

The DOJ claims Minnesota's policies violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

Which Supreme Court ruling is the DOJ citing in the lawsuit?

The DOJ invokes the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ruled that colleges cannot consider race in admissions, arguing it extends to employment affirmative action.

Who are the key figures from the DOJ involved in this lawsuit?

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Daniel Rosen are framing the suit, with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon leading the Civil Rights Division.

What is the context of other federal actions against Minnesota?

The lawsuit follows probes into state fraud, a controversial ICE officer shooting in Minneapolis, sanctuary city policies, immigration crackdowns, and frozen federal funds.

3 sources

•

1M ago

Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Race- and Sex-Based Affirmative Action Hiring Policies

The DOJ sued Minnesota, saying state-required race- and sex-based affirmative-action hiring goals unlawfully discriminate against non-preferred applicants, challenging state personnel practices under federal Title VII.

Overview

A summary of the key points of this story verified across multiple sources.

On Wednesday the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in federal court accusing Minnesota of unlawfully using race and sex-based affirmative-action hiring requirements across executive agencies.

The complaint targets Minnesota’s directives to set numerical race and sex hiring goals, track underutilization, require prehire justification forms, and DHS sign-offs and interview mandates for underrepresented candidates.

DOJ asserts such race- and sex-conscious policies violate federal Title VII, invoking recent Supreme Court rulings including the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen framed the suit as enforcing civil-rights law and curbing DEI policies, linking it to broader state governance concerns.

The lawsuit arrives amid federal scrutiny of Minnesota after fraud probes and a controversial Minneapolis ICE officer shooting, intensifying attention on state employment and accountability policies.

Written using shared reports from

3 sources

Report issue

Analysis

Compare how each side frames the story — including which facts they emphasize or leave out.

Analysis unavailable for this viewpoint.

How we categorize media bias

Sources (3)

Compare how different news outlets are covering this story.

Sort By

FAQ

Dig deeper on this story with frequently asked questions.

: The DOJ challenges Minnesota's directives to set numerical race and sex hiring goals, track underutilization, require prehire justification forms for non-underrepresented candidates, and DHS sign-offs and interview mandates for underrepresented candidates.
Sources:
United States Department of Justice
: The DOJ claims Minnesota's policies violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Sources:
KSTP
: The DOJ invokes the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ruled that colleges cannot consider race in admissions, arguing it extends to employment affirmative action.
Sources:
KSTP
: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Daniel Rosen are framing the suit, with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon leading the Civil Rights Division.
Sources:
Audacy
: The lawsuit follows probes into state fraud, a controversial ICE officer shooting in Minneapolis, sanctuary city policies, immigration crackdowns, and frozen federal funds.
Sources:
The Independent