Case
Do No Harm v. Cunningham
Share:

Case Information
- Case Name
- Do No Harm v. Cunningham
- Case Status
- Open
- Location
- Minnesota
Public advisory boards for government agencies are commonplace across the country, typically helping state agencies make informed decisions to carry out their public policies and priorities.
The Minnesota Health Equity Advisory and Leadership (HEAL) Council is one such board. HEAL makes recommendations on how to implement the Minnesota Department of Health’s equity plan into its policies and programs.
HEAL has 18 members and state law requires no prerequisites for membership except one: The health commissioner must consider race when making appointments.
Specifically, HEAL membership must include representation from the following preferred racial groups: African American and African heritage communities, Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, Latina/o/x communities, and American Indian communities and Tribal governments.
This forced racial balancing creates logistical and legal problems for the state. First, it’s difficult to fill open positions when the pool of eligible applicants is so limited. For example, a recent effort to fill an open seat with an “Asian American or Pacific Islander” applicant left HEAL without its full membership for months while the search dragged on.
Second, and far worse, these mandates deny public service opportunities to citizens for no reason other than their race. That’s racial discrimination, pure and simple, and it’s unconstitutional.
There is no shortage of qualified Minnesotans who could serve on the Council. This includes a member of Do No Harm in Minnesota, a physical therapy student who believes his healthcare experience would be a valuable addition to the Council. But because he is not of a preferred race, he is at a profound disadvantage for any openings.
That’s why Do No Harm is fighting back. Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, Do No Harm filed a federal lawsuit challenging the racial quota for Minnesota’s HEAL Council as violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
No government official should use an individual’s race or ethnicity to determine who gets the opportunity to serve the public. Treating people differently according to immutable characteristics like race violates the very notion of equality before the law. People should be treated as individuals, not as members of a group they did not choose.
Victory in this case would ensure an equal opportunity for all candidates to vie for Council membership, regardless of race.