Particle.news
Download on the App Store
9 ARTICLES
·
2w ago

Federal Officials Deport Minnesota Man Who Had Been Pardoned by State Board

The action shows a state pardon did not stop the federal revocation of immigration status and raises the prospect of legal and policy fights over how clemency affects removals.

Image
FILE - Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaks during a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on oversight of fraud and misuse of Federal funds in Minnesota, March 4, 2026, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File)
The US Dept. of Justice says Ruben Dario Loja Castro, age 33, had legally recieved his citizenship in 2025, but was associating with a criminal. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley, File)
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 04: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz testifies during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol Building on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. The committee held the hearing to examine the alleged misuse of federal funds intended for Minnesota social services and Medicaid programs. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Overview

  • Minnesota’s three-member Board of Pardons granted clemency to Tou Lue Vang on June 10 after a Clemency Review Commission recommendation and a letter from the victim expressing forgiveness.
  • Federal officials then revoked Vang’s U.S. legal status and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed him to Laos on July 10, overriding the state pardon by using immigration revocation and deportation powers.
  • Governor Tim Walz defended his vote for the pardon by citing the victim’s advocacy and the board’s review, while state spokespeople acknowledged a pardon does not bind federal immigration enforcement.
  • The deportation drew sharp criticism from national and state Republican leaders who said the pardon sheltered a dangerous offender and drew defenses from some Democrats, producing a partisan dispute over public safety and accountability.
  • The case was possible because U.S. repatriation to Laos has become practicable after years of limited removals, and it may prompt legal challenges and policy changes about how state clemency interacts with federal immigration tools.