Minnesota's Board of Pardons, with Gov. Tim Walz casting a vote, wiped out the conviction that was set to get a Laotian child rapist deported.
Tou Lue Vang raped a 10-year-old girl repeatedly between 2002 and 2006. He pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct in a deal that kept him out of prison. Two decades later, the man who committed that crime is no longer a convicted felon, at least not on paper, because Minnesota's governor helped erase it.
The Minnesota Board of Pardons, made up of Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, voted unanimously on June 10 to grant Vang a full pardon. Vang, 42, entered the United States through California in 1994 and was granted legal status under the Clinton administration. That status disappeared the moment he was convicted, and immigration authorities issued a final removal order. The pardon reaches back and knocks out the qualifying conviction itself, which is the legal hook Immigration and Customs Enforcement needed to deport him. Without it, according to DHS, Vang can stay.
The Department of Homeland Security did not soften its language. Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement that Minnesota's pardon board had "manufactured a legal loophole to shield a child rapist from the consequences of his own crime," and that DHS considered the board's action a direct attempt to frustrate federal immigration enforcement. Bis added that ICE had been actively coordinating Vang's removal for months before the pardon vote came down, and that agency attorneys are now reviewing whether the federal government has any avenue to challenge a state pardon that was granted, in her words, "for the express purpose of defeating deportation."
Under Minnesota law, the Board of Pardons can only act on a unanimous vote of all three members, meaning Ellison and Hudson agreed with Walz that Vang's conviction should be wiped clean. Board records show Vang's application cited his conduct since release, his family ties in Minnesota and letters of support from community members as reasons for clemency. Neither the victim nor her family appears to have submitted testimony at the hearing, according to the board's public docket, and it is unclear whether they were notified in advance that the case was being considered.
Minnesota is one of a small number of states where pardons can void the underlying conviction entirely rather than simply forgiving the sentence, a distinction that matters enormously in immigration cases. Federal law allows ICE to deport noncitizens convicted of certain sexual offenses against children, but that authority depends on the conviction remaining on the books. A "pardon of forgiveness," the kind most states issue, leaves the conviction intact for immigration purposes even after a sentence is served. Minnesota's board instead issued what state law treats as a pardon "extraordinary," which restores the person's legal status as though the crime never happened. Immigration attorneys say that distinction is precisely why cases like Vang's end up in front of the board rather than simply expiring on their own.
Walz's office has not issued a separate statement beyond confirming the governor's vote on the board, and a spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether the governor was aware of Vang's immigration status at the time of the hearing. Ellison's office likewise declined to elaborate beyond the board's official record. Hudson, as chief justice, has not commented publicly on individual pardon votes, consistent with her office's past practice.
This is not the first time Minnesota's pardon process has drawn scrutiny for its handling of noncitizens facing deportation. Advocacy groups on both sides of the immigration debate have flagged the extraordinary pardon mechanism in recent years, with immigrant rights organizations arguing it is a necessary check on mandatory deportation laws that offer judges no discretion, and critics arguing it functions as a backdoor around federal enforcement for anyone with enough community support letters. Vang's case is likely to intensify that fight, given the nature of the underlying crime and the fact that all three board members, each a statewide elected or appointed official facing eventual reelection or confirmation, signed off unanimously.
DHS has not said whether it intends to pursue Vang's removal through other legal channels, such as arguing the pardon itself was procured in bad faith or seeking review in federal court. Legal scholars who track the intersection of state clemency power and federal immigration law say such challenges are rare and rarely successful, since courts have historically treated a state's pardon power as largely beyond federal second-guessing. For now, Vang remains in Minnesota, his criminal record clear, while DHS officials signal that the case will factor into a broader push in Washington to limit how state pardons can be used to blunt federal deportation orders. Whether Congress or the courts take up that fight will determine if cases like this one become the exception or the rule.
Also read: McConnell was found unconscious and given CPR before June hospitalization • Judge blocks Virginia law that would have jailed masked ICE agents • Hawley launches USPS probe over dumped mail and Steiner's bonus
