A Minnesota clemency decision has reopened a fierce national argument over how the states and the federal government should weigh old crimes, rehabilitation and deportation.
The pardon
The Minnesota Board of Pardons granted clemency in June to a 42-year-old man who came to the United States from Laos as a child and was convicted in 2006 of criminal sexual conduct, including an offense involving a minor, KSTP reported. The vote came roughly a week before he was scheduled to be deported, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Herald is not naming the victim in the underlying case.
In a written statement to the board, the man expressed remorse and said a pardon would let him remain with his wife and children. Gov. Tim Walz, one of three board members, said the man had built a life in Minnesota and had no serious record since his release. "I can find no reason how Minnesota will be safer or better if [he] is deported to a country he has not been to since he was a child," Walz said.
How the board works
Minnesota's Board of Pardons is made up of the governor, the attorney general and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Under a 2023 overhaul of the state's clemency laws, a pardon no longer requires a unanimous vote — a majority suffices, provided the governor is in favor — and a new review commission now investigates applications before the board acts, MPR News reported. The board has convened expedited sessions in other cases when a deportation was imminent.
Why a state pardon matters
Under federal law, certain convictions make noncitizens subject to mandatory deportation regardless of how long they have lived in the country. A state pardon can, in some circumstances, remove or narrow that basis for removal — though immigration lawyers caution the effect is not always clear-cut and can still be litigated. MPR reported that advocates have begun advising eligible clients to seek pardons as a possible defense against deportation.
The backlash
Federal officials reacted sharply. The Department of Homeland Security called the decision indefensible, with a spokeswoman describing it in blunt terms and accusing state officials of impeding efforts to remove people convicted of serious crimes. Republican critics argue the board is being used to blunt immigration enforcement and that the severity of the underlying offense makes clemency unjustifiable regardless of later conduct.
Supporters counter that judging a person solely on a two-decade-old conviction — after years without new offenses, and with a family built in Minnesota — is disproportionate, and falls hardest on refugee communities with no real ties to the countries they would be sent to. The dispute is the latest in a series of Minnesota clemency grants in 2026 that have collided with an aggressive federal deportation drive, and it is unlikely to be the last.
