Minnesota’s Democrat leadership has quietly pardoned an illegal immigrant convicted of serious crimes so he can fight deportation, putting state power on a collision course with federal law and public safety.

Story Snapshot

• Gov. Tim Walz and the Minnesota Board of Pardons erased an illegal immigrant’s conviction so he can challenge deportation.
• The man, Tou Lue Vang, was convicted of repeated sexual abuse of a 10-year-old girl, yet now has a clean record under state law.
• The victim, now an adult, sent a letter supporting the pardon, which Walz’s allies use to defend their decision.
• Federal officials warn that such pardons can strip away the legal basis for removing criminal noncitizens from the United States.

Walz Board Wipes Child Sex Conviction to Aid Illegal Immigrant

On June 10, the Minnesota Board of Pardons, led by Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and the state’s chief justice, voted to pardon Tou Lue Vang, an immigrant from Laos who was facing imminent deportation. Vang had pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeatedly abusing a 10-year-old girl two decades ago, a conviction that cost him his legal status and became the foundation of his removal order. The pardon “set aside” that conviction under Minnesota law, clearing his record and giving him new grounds to contest deportation in federal immigration court.

Ellison’s office told reporters that the board reached a unanimous decision after receiving a letter of support from the victim, a recommendation from the Clemency Review Commission, and “numerous letters from the community” backing Vang. In that letter, the victim, now an adult, endorsed mercy for the man who abused her as a child, a fact Walz allies highlight to soften public reaction. Vang also wrote to the board expressing remorse and arguing that a pardon would let him stay with his wife and six children in Minnesota. Supporters painted him as rehabilitated and rooted in the community, despite the severity of his past crime.

Clemency Review Commission Fast-Tracks Case as Deportation Nears

The Minnesota Clemency Review Commission, a nine-member advisory body, endorsed Vang’s petition in April. Four members voted in favor, two voted against, and three were absent, yet their formal recommendation went to the Board of Pardons as supportive of clemency. Walz and his colleagues then moved quickly; the case was taken up and decided just as federal authorities prepared to deport Vang to Laos, the country he left as a child. This mirrors a pattern seen in other Minnesota cases, where the board has convened special or emergency meetings to consider pardons for noncitizens with old convictions, shortly before deportation. In each instance, the state action directly targets the conviction that Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses as the legal hook for removal.

Legal explainers note that for most state crimes, a governor’s pardon wipes out the conviction for immigration purposes, often protecting a noncitizen from deportation based on that offense. In practice, that means if federal law treated Vang’s child sexual abuse conviction as the reason he must be removed, erasing it may remove or weaken the government’s case. Scholars stress that the final outcome still depends on how immigration judges read federal statutes, but they agree that state pardons are now being used as a tool to blunt deportation. That intersection between state mercy and federal enforcement is exactly what makes the Walz board’s move so controversial.

Federal Concerns: State Mercy Versus National Security and Justice

In similar Minnesota cases, the United States Department of Homeland Security has blasted the Board of Pardons for shielding illegal immigrants with violent records, calling such decisions “absolute insanity” and warning they can block long-standing deportation orders. Federal immigration law is built around clear categories of deportable crimes, and noncitizens become removable when their convictions match those categories. When a state steps in after the fact to erase those convictions, it does not change what happened to the victims, but it can strip away the legal basis for removal. That tension raises serious questions about whether protection of the public and respect for victims’ trauma are being subordinated to political goals and activist agendas.

A PARDON for rape? I guess Tim Walz agrees "this is a minor thing" – when a minor child gets raped.

Minnesota deserves better…yet…they won't say shit even when their mouths are full of it. pic.twitter.com/iAFKJRTF1D

— Republic Kat (@DeClauseKat) July 2, 2026

For constitutional conservatives, the stakes are larger than one case. The Trump administration has pushed to enforce immigration law, remove criminal noncitizens, and restore respect for victims and the rule of law. Yet Democrat-led states like Minnesota are using narrow pardon boards to undermine those efforts, effectively turning state clemency into an immigration shield. That means an illegal immigrant twice protected—first by a plea deal that avoided prison, then by a pardon that erases his record—can stay and fight to remain in the country while law-abiding citizens watch their justice system bend away from accountability. As more such cases move forward, Americans who value secure borders, equal justice, and protection for children will be watching closely.

Sources:

townhall.com, foxnews.com, fox9.com, mn.gov, nyulawreview.org