Filed Date: Jan. 6, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On April 21, 2021, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was opening a pattern and practice investigation into the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota and the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). According to Garland, the investigation, initiated under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was to examine whether the City and MPD violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act. The announcement came a day after MPD officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd. In his announcement, Garland noted that this investigation was separate from a criminal investigation that DOJ had already launched into Chauvin.
The DOJ issued its findings on June 16, 2023, following the conclusion of its investigation. The Department found reasonable cause to believe that the City and MPD engaged in a pattern of conduct that deprived people of their rights under the Constitution and the law. Among the violations, the DOJ found that MPD used excessive force, unlawfully discriminated against black and Native American individuals in its enforcement activities, violated the rights of people engaged in protected speech, and discriminated against individuals with behavioral health disabilities when responding to calls for assistance. Alongside the violations, the DOJ found persistent deficiencies in MPD’s accountability systems, training, supervision, and officer wellness programs, which the department felt contributed to violations of the law.
The DOJ’s findings letter explained that it had reasonable cause to believe that the MPD engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In its findings, the DOJ discussed MPD’s use of unreasonable deadly force, including discharging firearms and using neck restraints when there was no immediate threat. Other practices at issue were: unreasonable and unsafe use of tasers, unreasonable takedowns, use of other bodily force and chemical irritants like pepper spray against compliant or restrained individuals, unreasonable and harmful uses of force against youth, failure to render medical aid to people in custody in disregard of their safety, and an inadequate force review system which the Department concluded contributed to the overall pattern and practice of an excessive use of force.
The DOJ also found reasonable cause to believe that MPD exhibited a pattern of unlawful discrimination against black and Native American individuals. The DOJ found that MPD had a practice of employing different enforcement strategies based on the racial composition of the neighborhood. Particularly during stops, MPD stopped and searched black and Native American individuals at higher rates, and used force at higher rates as well. After George Floyd’s murder, officers stopped reporting race and gender in a large number of stops, despite MPD’s policy requiring officers to collect the data. Finally, the DOJ found that MPD’s pattern of unlawful discrimination included a failure to sufficiently address known racial disparities, missing race data and allegations of bias, allowing unlawful policing practices to continue.
Next, the DOJ found reasonable cause to believe that MPD engaged in a pattern or practice of First Amendment violations. MPD officers were found to have a pattern of regularly retaliating against people for their speech or presence at protests. This retaliation frequently manifested as force, and MPD officers often failed to distinguish between peaceful protesters and individuals committing crimes, which was a required practice. MPD also retaliated against journalists and unlawfully restricted their access during protests, despite the fact that reporting is a constitutionally protected activity, and retaliation against individuals for gathering the news is prohibited by the First Amendment. And MPD’s retaliatory conduct was not limited to protests. During stops and calls for service, officers retaliated against people who observed, questioned or criticized them, even though observation and criticism of officers – including profane comments – constitutes protected speech.
The DOJ also identified evidence of violations of the ADA by the MPD and the City. Many behavioral health-related calls for service do not require a police response, but MPD responded to the majority of those calls, and that response was often harmful and ineffective. When MPD officers responded to behavioral health calls, they often failed to use appropriate de-escalation techniques, such as giving the individual extra space and time, speaking slowly and calmly, and actively listening. The DOJ found numerous examples of MPD officers unnecessarily escalating situations, and in many cases using avoidable force against people with behavioral health disabilities. The DOJ also found that the Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center contributed to unnecessary police responses to calls involving behavioral health disabilities, as they lacked the ability to adequately assess and appropriately dispatch behavioral health-related calls for service. New training regarding these calls was limited, particularly around behavioral health diagnoses, and response protocols were unclear. The DOJ also assessed that MPD lacked the ability to adequately assess and appropriately dispatch behavioral health-related calls for service, and inadequately trained officers to respond to those calls.
Finally, the DOJ found persistent deficiencies in MPD’s accountability systems, training, supervision, and officer wellness programs. The DOJ cited the complexity of MPD’s accountability system, and found that it discouraged complaints, wrongfully dismissed complaints at intake, misclassified complaints and ignored explicit misconduct allegations. MPD was also found to inappropriately divert serious misconduct for coaching (which was a non-disciplinary corrective action tool meant to address low-level misconduct), which sometimes never even took place. MPD also failed to: 1) conduct thorough, timely and fair misconduct investigations, 2) adequately discipline police misconduct, 3) adequately train officers to ensure effective, constitutional policing, and 4) adequately supervise officers, as MPD didn’t provide supervisors with the tools and data to prevent, detect and correct problematic officer behavior. MPD’s wellness programs were also found to be insufficient to adequately support officers.
The parties reached an agreement in principle, in which they committed to negotiating a comprehensive settlement in the form of a consent decree to be entered in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. As part of the agreement, the parties agreed that a third-party monitor would be selected to monitor the implementation of and compliance with the consent decree.
On December 31, 2024, the city reached a tentative agreement with the DOJ for a consent decree mandating several reforms and extensive federal oversight over the MPD.
On January 6, 2025 The United States filed a complaint against the City of Minneapolis under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (Section 12601); Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d (Safe Streets Act), transferred to 34 U.S.C. § 10228; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134 (Title II). Reiterating the findings of the initial investigation, the complaint alleges that the Minneapolis Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of using unreasonable excessive force, that it engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory enforcement, that it has exhibited a pattern of discrimination against individuals with behavioral health disabilities, and that it has deficient accountability, training, and supervision systems. The United States requested declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court.
On January 6, 2025, the City filed a joint motion for approval of the consent decree which would require the City to implement reforms within the Minneapolis Police Department focused on the areas of excessive force, racial discrimination, and community relations.
The proceedings were stayed from February to May, 2025 pursuant to motions filed by the United States.
On May 21, 2025, the United States filed a motion to dismiss, and requested that the Court dismiss the case and withdrew its support of the proposed consent decree, stating that it no longer believed the consent decree would be consistent with the public interest.
On May 27, 2025, Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted the order to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Order Dismissing the Case additionally denied the parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement as moot. In a footnote, Judge Magnuson expressed concerns about the case as a whole, questioning whether the lawsuit presented any case or controversy, given that the United States and the City were not adverse because they desired “precisely the same result.” In addition to the concerns about Article III standing, Judge Magnuson expressed “grave misgivings” about the proposed consent decree serving the public interest. He noted that the consent decree would allow the legislature and City executives to blame the Court for Minneapolis Police Department failures, omitted critical data and information about the department’s alleged violations, and is superfluous due to an agreement entered between the department and the Minnesota Human Department of Human rights, which requires the department to implement many of the proposed consent decree’s requirements. Finally, the Court noted that the taxpayer money allocated by the consent decree would be better used to fund additional police hiring.
This case has been dismissed with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Jonah Hudson-Erdman (9/12/2021)
Simran Takhar (7/6/2023)
Carlos Hurtado-Esteve (1/2/2025)
Sofia Yoder (9/14/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69520444/parties/united-states-v-city-of-minneapolis/
Bildtsen, Ann M (District of Columbia)
Chamblee-Ryan, Katherine (Minnesota)
Clarke, Kristen M. (District of Columbia)
Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)
Anderson, Kristyn (Minnesota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69520444/united-states-v-city-of-minneapolis/
Last updated Nov. 11, 2025, 5:42 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Traffic Stop Litigation
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 6, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Minneapolis (Minneapolis, Hennepin), City
Minneapolis Police Department (Minneapolis, Hennepin), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:25-cv-00048
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Policing:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Restraints : chemical (policing)