How DEI NGOs Hijacked Minnesota’s Legal System And Sent Taxpayers the Bill
Using taxpayer-funded settlements, a coordinated network of progressive legal nonprofits has rewritten state and local policy through courtroom victories rather than ballot boxes—bypassing democratic accountability entirely. Though operating within current IRS regulations, this approach imposes DEI mandates without legislative approval or voter consent.
Minnesota's progressive administration and its allied nonprofits have perfected this strategy. The Christina Lusk case, filed in June 2022 in Ramsey County District Court, exposes this infrastructure at work. Lusk, a transgender male with gender dysphoria, sued the Minnesota Department of Corrections, alleging that the agency's policies violated rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Minnesota Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, bodily autonomy, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
The 2022 Lusk v. DOC case exemplifies this strategy: a $495,000 settlement that mandated World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) standards for transgender inmates. Without legislative votes, hearings, or appropriations, WPATH standards—developed by a private advocacy organization—were imposed through closed-door negotiation rather than democratic deliberation. The result: permanent policy funded by taxpayers, decided by settlement agreement instead of Legislation.
Policy by Settlement: Circumventing Votes, Burdening Taxpayers
This bypasses democratic safeguards, enriching NGOs through a revolving door connected to Attorney General Keith Ellison's office. The settlement mandates ongoing expenditures—WPATH-certified consultants, facility modifications, specialized undergarments, staff training—none appropriated by the Minnesota Legislature. This appears to be a likely violation of fundamental constitutional principles, and it is stark.
Minnesota Constitution Article XI, Section 11, "No money shall be paid out of the treasury of this state except in pursuance of an appropriation by law." The Lusk settlement appears to have violated this fundamental principle. By permanent imposition of financial commitment and burden on taxpayers, without a single legislative vote.
Minnesota Constitution Article III, Section 12 further prohibits any branch from exercising powers belonging to another—yet here, a court settlement has usurped the Legislature's exclusive "power of the purse," mandating policy and spending that only elected representatives can authorize.
This is de facto lawmaking—policy created outside the democratic process and nearly impossible to reverse. The cycle is self-perpetuating: the more money these organizations receive, the more powerful they become, the more policies they can impose. Legal scholars have warned of "unaccountable collusion with private parties" between NGOs and state agencies, leading to settlement agreements that circumvent legislative authority and bind administrations without voter input. Are these publicly funded, unelected NGOs and attorneys general overstepping their duties in cases like Lusk? Taxpayers bankroll them—yet their voices are silenced. How does this system operate? One organization reveals the entire architecture.
The Architecture of Influence
Behind this mechanism is a meticulously funded apparatus. Gender Justice—a Minnesota 501(c)(3) founded in 2010—serves as the linchpin. While branding itself as a law firm for gender equality, it operates in the gray area between legal aid, lobbying, and advocacy, funneling resources into DEI-driven mandates closely aligned with the Walz administration.
Executive Director Megan Peterson previously led the National Network of Abortion Funds, which generated $49 million in FY 2022. Gender Justice's 2022 revenue was $2.9 million—only 8.6% from program fees, the rest from grants. State funding surged from $1,500 (2022) to $448,904 (2023), per OpenTheBooks. In 2024, MacKenzie Scott's Yield Giving awarded Gender Justice $2 million.
During this period, Gender Justice filed multiple lawsuits—including Lusk—securing policies like WPATH standards, with active support from Attorney General Keith Ellison. Senior Attorney Christy Hall litigated the Lusk case before joining Ellison’s office in March 2025, enforcing these same policies.
This legal-and-funding strategy isn’t unique: The Women’s Foundation of Minnesota—called by InfluenceWatch “an initiative with the Minnesota governor’s office”—has funded Gender Justice since 2012, including a $10,000 wellness grant in 2025. All mirror a larger pattern of progressive nonprofits driving major policy change through court settlements, not democratic debate.
The result: NGOs, fueled by public and philanthropic dollars, expand their reach and power with every tax-funded victory. They now function as unelected lawmakers—accountable to donors, not voters—while settlements replace legislative debate. Without safeguards, this model spreads: settlements become policy, and democratic accountability erodes.
Policy Changes Without Legislative Approval: DOC’s Adoption of WPATH Standards
The settlement required DOC to revise Policy 202.045 and Policy 202.130, mandating WPATH standards of care. These guidelines—developed by a private advocacy organization, not state medical boards—require consultation with WPATH-certified professionals for housing and medical decisions, staff training, name changes, and facility transfers matching gender identity.
Key Provisions in DOC Policy Went into Effect: April 1, 2024
Single-cell assignments for transgender inmates
Separate shower facilities
Provision of undergarments consistent with gender identity
Pat-down searches conducted by staff of the facility’s gender classification, not the inmate’s biological sex
These measures depart from previous norms by institutionalizing gender identity as the principal consideration in inmate management. Crucially, none of the costs associated with implementing these policies—covering infrastructure, training, and supplies—were appropriated through the state legislature. As a result, Minnesota taxpayers are bearing the financial burden without the usual transparency or fiscal scrutiny.
Lusk
Bypassing Minnesota’s Legislative Process
The state constitution and legislative rules require that changes impacting state operations undergo comprehensive legislative review. This includes:
Committee hearings with opportunities for public testimony
Detailed fiscal cost analyses
Floor votes in both the 134-member House and the 67-member Senate
Approval by the Governor
None of these procedural steps were observed in adopting these DOC policies. Instead, the policy emerged publicly in June 2023 following a confidential mediation process and was enacted by a single appointed commissioner without any formal legislative debate or vote.
Impact on Minnesota Correctional Facilities
The revised policy has affected all state correctional facilities housing approximately 8,000 inmates, including 48 individuals identifying as transgender. A notable outcome has been the transfer of Lusk, the first openly transgender inmate, from MCF-Moose Lake to Shakopee Women’s Facility in June 2023. By February 2025, three transgender women were housed at Shakopee, Minnesota’s sole women’s prison.
The Lusk Case is not an Anomaly.
It represents a deliberate strategy—replicated across states through networks like Gender Justice—to circumvent democratic processes when legislative gridlock stalls progressive priorities. Progressive administrations have discovered an alternative: fund nonprofits, litigate against their own agencies, settle quickly, and impose policy through court order. The mechanism works within legal frameworks while nullifying electoral accountability. Taxpayers absorb costs. Voters bear consequences. NGOs grow more powerful with each settlement. Minnesota has become a laboratory for this approach. Without legislative safeguards, this model will expand.