Minnesota Board Pardons Convicted Child Rapist, but Federal Officials Deport Him Anyway

When a convicted child rapist gets a full pardon on the eve of deportation, it exposes how far America’s leaders are willing to bend the system in the name of “second chances.”

Story Snapshot

Minnesota’s Board of Pardons, led by Gov. Tim Walz, erased Tou Lue Vang’s child sex conviction just before federal deportation.
The now-adult victim submitted a letter forgiving Vang and supporting the pardon, which officials say was decisive.
Federal immigration officials ignored the pardon and deported Vang anyway, highlighting the clash between state clemency and federal power.
Walz defended the move by saying we “cannot be judged by our worst day,” fueling anger across the political spectrum.

How a Child Rapist Got a Full Pardon in Minnesota

On June 10, the Minnesota Board of Pardons voted unanimously to grant a full pardon to Tou Lue Vang, a 42-year-old immigrant from Laos who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl more than twenty years ago. The three-member board includes Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. The pardon wiped out Vang’s felony record for first-degree criminal sexual conduct under state law, restoring his civil rights and clearing his official background.

Vang had come to the United States as a child and built a family here, with a wife and six children. In his petition, he expressed deep regret for the abuse and argued that a pardon would help him stay in the country with his family instead of being deported to Laos. The case moved unusually fast through Minnesota’s clemency system, with his application filed, heard, and granted in less than a year, even though many applicants wait much longer. That speed added to public suspicion that politics and immigration policy played a role.

The Victim’s Forgiveness and Walz’s “Worst Day” Defense

Officials say the key factor was a statement from the victim, now an adult woman, who wrote that she had “made peace” with what happened and forgave Vang. She urged the board to let his family stay together, saying he had changed and that his children needed their father. Walz’s office highlighted this letter when defending the decision, stressing that the victim herself supported the pardon and that the process included many community letters and a recommendation from the Clemency Review Commission.

Asked about the backlash, Walz said the pardon was not mainly about immigration but about recognizing rehabilitation and the idea that people should not be judged only by their worst day. That phrase hit a nerve. For many Americans, the “worst day” here was not a bad choice or a minor crime; it was the repeated sexual assault of a child. Critics across the political spectrum saw the comment as proof that leaders will bend over backward for offenders while everyday families struggle to get basic justice.

Federal Immigration Power Overrules the State Pardon

Even though Minnesota wiped Vang’s state conviction, the federal government still had the final say over whether he could stay in the country. Federal immigration law allows some pardoned crimes to no longer count for deportation, but serious offenses like child sexual abuse still trigger removal. In past cases, legal scholars have shown that the “pardon waiver” in the Immigration and Nationality Act only covers certain types of crimes, leaving many serious offenses fully deportable even after a governor’s pardon.

The Department of Homeland Security quickly made clear it would not treat Vang’s pardon as a shield from removal. Immigration authorities said the Minnesota decision came just a week before his scheduled deportation and accused state officials of undermining efforts to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Within weeks, federal officials revoked Vang’s legal status and deported him, despite the erased Minnesota conviction and the victim’s forgiveness. The move showed how little power a state has when its clemency choices collide with federal immigration priorities.

What This Case Reveals About Elites, Justice, and Public Trust

The Vang case has become a flashpoint for broader anger about how America’s justice system treats ordinary citizens versus people who have powerful allies. Supporters of tougher immigration enforcement argue this shows liberal leaders will even pardon a child rapist to block deportation, putting ideology above child safety. Many conservatives see it as yet another example of elites ignoring victims while shielding criminals, especially noncitizens, from consequences.

But frustration is not limited to the right. Many liberals who care about victims’ rights, economic fairness, and government accountability look at this case and see a system where political insiders can erase even the most serious crimes, while regular people still carry minor records for life. Legal documents show the pardon did more than forgive Vang; it ordered his record sealed so most background checks would never show the child rape conviction. For Americans already worried that the “deep state” protects its own, this feels like one more sign that the rules are different for those with connections and a compelling narrative.