The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Walz
Overview
Plaintiffs challenge a Minnesota statute that mandates at least five out of the fifteen members of the Minnesota Board of Social Work be from "a community of color" or "an underrepresented community."
Details
Plaintiffs argue that because the statute requires the Governor to make decisions on the basis of race, it violates the Constitution.
Defendant argues that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that Plaintiff lacks standing, and that Plaintiff's claim is barred by "sovereign immunity" under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
On April 3, 2025, the parties agreed to dismiss the case after Defendant stated that the statute does not require consideration of a candidate’s race when appointing members to the Board, nor does it restrict the pool of qualified candidates based on race or ethnicity.
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Status
Filed May 15, 2024 | Settled
The case was dismissed after the parties settled.
Significance
This case provides an example of the far-reaching impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), as plaintiffs are challenging many race-conscious requirements in the public sector.