Civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon detailed a legal challenge targeting Minnesota’s longstanding affirmative action policies, arguing that the state’s framework violates federal law by discriminating against majority groups in employment.
Dhillon said similar policies have appeared in multiple cities across the country, pointing to recent examples where public backlash led to reversals.
“Well, look, Chicago has this many big cities have it,” Dhillon said. “When I tweeted about Asheville trying to do this, they withdrew their policy.”
She described the issue as widespread and ongoing.
“Asheville, North Carolina, it’s like Whack a Mole out there,” Dhillon said.
According to Dhillon, Minnesota’s policies date back decades and are rooted in earlier legal interpretations that she said have since been challenged by more recent court rulings.
“But the state of Minnesota has long had this affirmative action regime dating back to the 1960s and 1970s a couple of bad Supreme Court precedents that wrongly interpreted Title Seven,” she said.
Dhillon pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions that she said clarify the legal standard regarding discrimination.
“The United States Supreme Court, more recently, has held in students for fair admissions and Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services that it’s illegal to discriminate against majority people or anybody,” Dhillon said.
She emphasized that the legal argument centers on equal protection under the law for all individuals, regardless of background.
“So, you know, white men have rights just the same as any minority or LGBTQ person, and that’s a very American concept,” she said.
Dhillon said the case against Minnesota is proceeding through a legal pathway that could expedite its review at the highest level.
“So we’re going to court,” she said.
She explained that the case has been designated as a matter of national importance, allowing it to move more quickly through the judicial system.
“We’ve actually had a very rare situation here where I asked, where I asked Attorney General, then Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to certify that this was a case of national importance,” Dhillon said.
Under that designation, Dhillon said the case can bypass intermediate appellate review.
“And if it’s a civil rights case of national importance, it can skip over the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for appeal,” she said.
Dhillon described the process as uncommon and noted that it has not been widely used in recent years.
“So it’s a fast track case, and it’s the first time this provision has been used in decades in recent memory,” she said.
She said the legal team is preparing to argue the case with the goal of overturning what she described as discriminatory employment practices in Minnesota.
“And so we’re looking forward to litigating this, and we’re looking forward to overturning Minnesota’s illegal discrimination against majority people in employment throughout the state,” Dhillon said.
WATCH: