Minnesota Child Welfare Reform Hits Constitutional Roadblock, Raising National Questions

By Michael Phillips | WIBayNews

A sweeping Minnesota child welfare reform hailed as a landmark effort to reduce racial disparities in foster care has run into a major constitutional obstacle, underscoring the growing tension between race-conscious social policy and equal protection law.

On December 3, 2025, a Hennepin County District Court judge ruled that the early rollout of Minnesota’s African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While the ruling stops short of striking down the entire law, it raises serious legal and policy questions that could ripple far beyond Minnesota.

A Law Aimed at Reducing Disparities

The Minnesota Legislature passed the African American Family Preservation Act in May 2024 with bipartisan support. Lawmakers cited stark disparities in the child welfare system: Black children in Minnesota have historically been removed from their homes at roughly three times the rate of white children, while Native American youth face even higher rates.

The law was modeled in part on the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which requires child welfare agencies to make “active efforts” to keep Native American children with their families and tribes. Minnesota’s statute extends similar heightened protections to “African American and disproportionately represented children,” a category defined by race, ethnicity, disability status, and low income.

Among its key provisions:

• A higher “active efforts” standard before children can be removed from their homes.
• Increased evidentiary thresholds for substantiating abuse or neglect.
• Strong preferences for kinship placement if removal occurs.
• Creation of a new African American Child Well-Being Unit and grant programs to support families.

The law is scheduled to take full effect statewide on January 1, 2027.

Why the Court Stepped In

To manage costs and staffing constraints, Minnesota launched a phased rollout in Hennepin and Ramsey counties beginning in January 2025. Only a portion of eligible cases—starting at roughly 30 percent—received the law’s enhanced protections, with expansion planned over two years.

That phase-in became the focus of the lawsuit.

Mariah Banks, a Black mother whose children were removed by Hennepin County, sued after learning her case was excluded from the pilot program. Judge Matthew Frank agreed that the rollout violated the 14th Amendment by arbitrarily granting heightened protections to some families while denying them to others who were otherwise eligible.

In his ruling, Frank described the approach as “decidedly underinclusive,” noting that families were treated differently based on race, geography, and timing, with no transparent or consistent selection criteria. While acknowledging the counties’ resource limitations, the court found those concerns insufficient to justify unequal treatment under the Constitution.

Importantly, the judge did not strike down the entire law. Instead, he blocked continuation of the two-year phase-in and left open the possibility that the Legislature could implement the law uniformly—or redesign the rollout in a constitutionally sound way. He also declined to apply the ruling retroactively to Banks’ case.

Reactions and Unanswered Questions

Supporters of the law expressed disappointment but vowed to continue pushing forward. State Rep. Esther Agbaje, the bill’s chief author, said she plans to propose legislative fixes in 2026. Advocacy groups pointed to early data from the pilot suggesting fewer removals and reduced court involvement when “active efforts” standards were applied.

Counties, meanwhile, are reviewing the decision and weighing next steps. No immediate statewide changes were announced as of mid-December.

But beyond the narrow ruling, the case has exposed deeper vulnerabilities that many outlets have barely addressed.

Broader Constitutional Risks

While the court avoided ruling on the substance of the law itself, legal analysts across the ideological spectrum note that Minnesota’s approach faces significant constitutional headwinds.

Unlike ICWA—which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2023 based on tribal sovereignty, not race—the Minnesota law explicitly conditions heightened protections on racial and demographic classifications. That distinction could prove decisive if the statute is challenged more broadly.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision ending race-conscious college admissions, courts have applied heightened scrutiny to government programs that differentiate based on race. Critics argue Minnesota’s law may ultimately fail that test, regardless of its intentions.

Child Safety and System Capacity Concerns

Another underreported issue is the practical impact on child safety and agency capacity.

The “active efforts” standard requires significantly more services, documentation, and intervention before removal is allowed. County officials originally cited these demands as the reason for phasing the law in gradually. Critics worry that expanding the standard statewide without additional resources could delay urgent interventions in high-risk cases.

Some child protection workers, prosecutors, and foster care advocates quietly express concern that making removals harder for certain groups could unintentionally keep children in dangerous situations longer—an argument long raised by opponents of ICWA and similar policies.

A National Test Case

Minnesota is among a small number of states experimenting with race-based child welfare reforms for non-Native populations. Other states, including Montana, are watching closely. The outcome may influence whether similar laws spread—or stall—nationwide.

The irony of the case is hard to ignore: a Black mother sued because she was denied protections designed to help families like hers. That contradiction underscores the challenge lawmakers face when attempting to correct systemic disparities through selective legal standards.

As Minnesota weighs appeals or legislative revisions, the broader question remains unresolved: Can states address racial disparities in child welfare without violating constitutional guarantees of equal protection?

For families, courts, and policymakers across the Midwest and beyond, the answer may shape the future of child welfare reform for years to come.