DOJ Challenges Minnesota's Affirmative Action Hiring Program

Key Highlights

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota challenging its affirmative action hiring program. It alleges that Minnesota's requirement to consider race, sex and other protected characteristics in public employment decisions violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• The case is poised to test the limits of affirmative action in employment and could become a bellwether for similar policies nationwide and across public and private employers.

DOJ Targets Minnesota's Use of Race and Sex in Public Hiring

Minnesota law mandates that state agencies take proactive steps to recruit and hire individuals from historically underrepresented groups, aiming to address workforce disparities. In a complaint filed on Jan.14, 2026, the DOJ asserts that this practice unlawfully favors certain applicants based on protected characteristics. Federal lawyers argue that the mandate amounts to intentional discrimination in violation of Title VII's ban on making employment decisions because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

The lawsuit acknowledges past U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as United Steelworkers v. Weberand Johnson v. Transportation Agency, that permitted limited affirmative action plans to remedy persistent inequality. The DOJ, however, contends that those decades-old precedents are outdated and conflict with both Title VII's text and the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending race-conscious college admissions.

By certifying the Minnesota case as one of "general public importance," the DOJ also seeks a special three-judge panel to hear the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b), which would fast-track any appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

Broader Implications for Employers and State Diversity Initiatives

The Department's challenge signals increased scrutiny of government-mandated diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Many employers have already grown more cautious with voluntary diversity programs following Executive Orders issued in 2025, but they were left with some uncertainty on conflicting obligations between federal and state laws. A ruling against Minnesota could further imperil similar state or local requirements for affirmative action in hiring or contracting.

If the Supreme Court ultimately curtails or eliminates affirmative action in the employment context, public-sector workforces and contractor practices nationwide may need to adjust accordingly.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.