UPDATE: DOJ Opens Preliminary Review into Ramsey County
Date: July 10, 2025
Event: On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division assigned case number 25-OCR-1567 to Plaintiff's submissions regarding Ramsey County's handling of disability accommodations and procedural irregularities. The assignment marks the beginning of a preliminary federal review into the practices documented in Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al.
What Triggered Federal Attention
The initial referral focused on ADA retaliation: repeated denials or obstructions of Plaintiff's disability accommodation requests, including failures to provide accessible procedures, refusal to acknowledge disability status, and the use of procedural barriers at critical moments in litigation.
These concerns were raised after months of Plaintiff documenting:
- altered or unsigned court orders,
- selective access to the courts,
- late-issued or backdated notices,
- and inconsistent enforcement of filing requirements.
Scope Expands: Fee Irregularities and Administrative Misconduct
After the case number was assigned, DOJ personnel were notified of additional issues involving irregular fee handling by Ramsey County judicial officers and court administration. These irregularities included:
- fee waivers granted, denied, and reversed without explanation,
- backdoor approvals inconsistent with the Register of Actions,
- fees assessed in ways that contradicted written procedure, and
- financial burdens imposed in retaliation for requesting accommodations.
These issues were not isolated-they intersected with the same record anomalies already under scrutiny in both the federal civil rights case and the HRO appeal.
The Federal Oversight Gap
The DOJ's involvement stands in stark contrast to the response from Minnesota's internal oversight bodies. Prior state-level complaints-including those submitted to court administration, the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the Judicial Branch's ADA unit, and the State Court Administrator's Office-were dismissed, ignored, or returned with factual inaccuracies.
The DOJ review began only after:
- multiple unsigned or altered orders were documented,
- metadata inconsistencies appeared in court-issued notices,
- and Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit detailing the systemic failures.
In effect, federal review began where state oversight ended.
Why This Matters
A DOJ case number does not guarantee a full investigation-but it formalizes the matter, preserves the record, and puts Ramsey County's practices within the jurisdiction of federal civil rights authorities. For a case defined by altered documents, inconsistent procedures, and ADA retaliation, federal oversight represents the first meaningful check on the system that produced those failures.
The opening of case 25-OCR-1567 serves as an early marker of the broader pattern that would later be reflected across state, county, and federal filings.