A federal officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, shortly after the Trump administration deployed thousands of immigration agents to the city. Although the full circumstances of the killing remain unclear, video of the shooting shows an officer opening fire on the woman as she drove away.
Minnesota
Can Minnesota prosecute the federal immigration officer who just killed a woman?
Realistically, there’s virtually no chance that President Donald Trump’s Justice Department will bring federal charges against the officer who killed this woman. Trump already claimed on TruthSocial, his personal social media site, that the officer shot the woman in “self defense.” (The officer could potentially be prosecuted after Trump leaves office.)
But many local officials are quite upset about this incident. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey gave a press conference Wednesday afternoon where he told US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to “get the fuck out of Minneapolis.” If further investigations reveal that the shooting was not legally justified, state prosecutors could potentially charge the officer responsible with a homicide crime.
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority has made it very difficult for private citizens to sue federal law enforcement officers who break the law. But can a federal officer actually be charged with, and convicted of, violating a state criminal law?
Until fairly recently, the law was favorable to federal officials who allegedly violate state criminal laws while they carry out their official duties. The seminal case, known as In re Neagle (1890), held that a deputy US marshall who shot and killed a man could not be charged with murder in state court, because this federal officer did so while acting as a bodyguard for a US Supreme Court justice.
Last June, however, the Supreme Court handed down Martin v. United States (2025), which held that Neagle does not always protect federal officials who violate state law. The rule announced in Martin is vague, so it is unclear how it would apply to the shooting in Minneapolis. But the gist of the ruling is that a federal officer is only protected if they can demonstrate that “their actions, though criminal under state law, were ‘necessary and proper’ in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.”
If the officer responsible for the Minneapolis killing broke Minnesota law, in other words, any prosecution against them would turn on whether the courts decide shooting this woman was a “necessary and proper” exercise of the officer’s official duties.
There is one other potential complication. A federal law provides that state criminal charges against “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or any agency thereof” may be removed from state court and heard by a federal judge. This statute does not prevent state prosecutors from bringing charges or from prosecuting a case. But it does ensure that the question of whether Neagle applies to this case would be decided by federal courts that are increasingly dominated by conservative Republicans.
Federal cases out of Minnesota appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a very conservative court where 10 of the 11 active judges were appointed by Republicans. And, of course, any decision by the Eighth Circuit might be appealed to the Supreme Court, where Republicans control six of the nine seats.
All of which is a long way of saying that, while the law does not absolutely preclude Minnesota prosecutors from filing charges against this officer, it is far from clear that those charges will stick.
When are federal officers immune from prosecution in state court?
The facts underlying the Neagle case are simply wild. David Terry was a lawyer and former chief justice of the state of California, who had served with US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field while the two were both state supreme court justices. At the time, federal justices were required to “ride circuit” and hear cases outside of Washington, DC. And so, Field wound up hearing a dispute about whether Terry’s wife was entitled to a share of a US senator’s fortune.
At the court proceeding, where Field ruled against Terry’s wife, Terry punched a US marshal, brandished a bowie knife, and was jailed for contempt of court. After his release, he and his wife continued to threaten Field’s life, and so, the attorney general ordered Deputy Marshal David Neagle to act as Field’s bodyguard.
Then, Terry attacked Field while Field was traveling through California by train, and Neagle shot and killed Terry.
Given these facts, it’s unsurprising that the Supreme Court ruled that California could not bring charges against Neagle for this killing. The case involved a physical attack on a sitting justice! And, besides, Neagle acted within the scope of his responsibilities as Field’s federally appointed bodyguard.
135 years later, however, the Court decided Martin. That more recent decision focused on language in the Neagle opinion that suggested that its scope may be limited. Neagle, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in Martin, arose from concerns that “California could frustrate federal law by prosecuting a federal marshal “for an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States.” Protecting Field was something that “it was [Neagle’s] duty to do.” And, in shooting Terry, Neagle “did no more than what was necessary and proper.”
Thus, Gorsuch extracted a rule from Neagle that federal officials are only protected from state law when their actions “were ‘necessary and proper’ in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.”
In the wake of Martin, Minnesota may very well be able to prosecute the officer responsible for the Minnesota killing. As a general rule, federal law enforcement officers are not authorized by the law of the United States to shoot people without justification. So, if it turns out that this killing was legally unjustified, federal courts may conclude that the officer’s actions were not necessary and proper in the discharge of his official duties.
That said, Martin is a fairly new opinion, and the rule it announced is vague. And any prosecution against a federal immigration officer would be unavoidably political. So, it is unclear whether the judges who hear this case would approach it as fair and impartial jurists or as partisans.
The bottom line, in other words, is that the law governing when federal officers may be charged with state crimes is quite unclear. So, it is uncertain whether a prosecution against this particular officer would succeed — even assuming that a state prosecutor could convince a jury to convict.
MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) – Gas prices are climbing again in the Twin Cities, with experts warning drivers to brace for more increases if oil prices keep rising.
Twin Cities gas prices see sharp increase
What we know:
According to GasBuddy’s survey of 1,106 stations, the average price for regular gasoline in the Twin Cities jumped 10.9 cents per gallon in the last week, now sitting at $4.18 per gallon. That’s 38.6 cents higher than a month ago, and $1.28 more than this time last year.
The national average price for gasoline also rose, hitting $4.48 per gallon after a 5.1-cent increase over the past week. Diesel prices are up too, with the national average at $5.62 per gallon, a 0.2-cent increase.
The cheapest gas in the Twin Cities was $3.70 per gallon Sunday, while the most expensive was $4.63 — a difference of 93 cents per gallon. Across Minnesota, prices ranged from $3.70 to $5.01 per gallon.
Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said, “Average gasoline prices declined in just six states over the last week, led by the Great Lakes region, where motorists in states like Michigan and Ohio saw prices fall sharply, while Indiana experienced even steeper relief after the state temporarily waived both its excise and use taxes on gasoline.”
GasBuddy’s data shows that while some states saw relief, most drivers are paying more at the pump.
Gas prices in neighboring states
By the numbers:
Gas prices in neighboring states and cities are also fluctuating. Wisconsin drivers are paying $4.37 per gallon, almost unchanged from last week. Sioux Falls saw a significant jump, with prices rising 17.3 cents to $4.13 per gallon. Minnesota’s statewide average is now $4.16, up 11.1 cents from last week.
Looking at the last five years, Twin Cities prices have varied: $2.90 per gallon in May 2025, $3.25 in 2024, $3.47 in 2023, $4.11 in 2022 and $2.76 in 2021. GasBuddy compiles these numbers from more than 11 million weekly price reports across over 150,000 gas stations nationwide.
How much more you’re paying at the pump
Dig deeper:
In the scenario that your vehicle has a 15-gallon tank that you fill up about every 10 days, here is a look at how much more it’s costing you in May versus April, and in 2026 versus last year.
Now: At an average price of $4.18/gallon at three times per month at $62.70 per trip, that comes out to $188.10
One month ago: An average price of $3.79/gallon at $56.85 per trip, that’s $170.55 per month.
One year ago: An average price of $2.90/gallon at $43.50 per trip, that’s $130.50 per month.
Drivers face more uncertainty ahead
What’s next:
De Haan said, “Those declines helped pull the national average lower by roughly eight cents over the last several days after oil prices eased mid-week on optimism that the U.S. and Iran could reach a deal. However, that optimism has since largely unraveled, with talks appearing to stall and President Trump signaling the latest proposal is unacceptable, helping push oil prices higher again in Sunday electronic trade.”
He warned that if oil prices continue to climb, the national average could approach $4.65 per gallon. Ongoing refinery issues are also affecting diesel production, especially in the Great Lakes region, where prices are nearing record highs.
Should geopolitical tensions escalate further, fuel prices could rise even more sharply in the weeks ahead, De Haan said. Many drivers are watching prices closely and hoping for relief, but experts say the outlook remains uncertain for now.
What we don’t know:
It’s unclear how long prices will continue to rise or when drivers might see relief at the pump. Future changes will depend on oil markets, refinery operations and global events.
The Source: This story uses information from GasBuddy.
Cori Roberts of St. Cloud, Minnesota, incurred more than $8,000 in medical bills after she was diagnosed at CentraCare with early-stage cervical cancer. She says the health system told her she made too much — about $41,000 a year — to qualify for financial aid.
Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune
hide caption
toggle caption
Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune
ST. CLOUD, Minn. — Cori Roberts was living in a rented basement four years ago when she was diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer.
Recently divorced, the former stay-at-home mother had returned to work in her mid-40s, taking a human resources job that paid $41,000 a year. Then, despite having insurance, she was hit with more than $8,000 in medical bills.
“I had my car and a basket of clothes,” Roberts recalled. “Medical bills were not something I could have afforded.”
Roberts sought financial assistance from CentraCare, the St. Cloud-based health system that treated her. It’s a nonprofit charity that receives millions of dollars in federal, state, and local tax breaks. In exchange, it’s obliged to offer charity care to patients who can’t afford their medical bills.
But Roberts said CentraCare told her she made too much to qualify.
Roberts instead scrimped on groceries and Christmas gifts for her kids and paid off more than $6,000 over two years. Then CentraCare sued her last year because she hadn’t paid off all the debt.
“They’re supposed to be a nonprofit,” Roberts said. “It’s like, ‘Come on!’”
This story was a collaboration between KFF Health News and the Minnesota Star Tribune.
A sliver of financial aid
CentraCare earmarks just a tiny fraction of its budget for helping patients with medical bills they can’t pay, but it’s not alone in that, a Minnesota Star Tribune-KFF Health News investigation found.
Minnesota’s hospitals and health systems are among the least charitable in the country, the investigation found, providing less financial aid as a percentage of their operating budgets on average than hospitals in almost every other state.
The investigation drew on a detailed review of every hospital charity care program in the state, an analysis of five years of hospital financial data, and dozens of interviews with patients, hospital executives and state officials.
Nationally, hospitals spend an average of about 2.4% of their operating budgets on charity care, according to federal hospital data compiled by Hossein Zare, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University. Minnesota hospitals spend about a third of that, on average.
CentraCare’s flagship hospital in St. Cloud, Minnesota, earmarks only a fraction of its budget for helping patients who can’t pay their medical bills.
Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune
hide caption
toggle caption
Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune
Some spend considerably less. Of Minnesota’s 123 general hospitals, 62 devoted less than 0.5% of their operating budgets to charity care from 2020 through 2024, the Star Tribune-KFF Health News investigation found.
“The system is not working,” said Erin Hartung, director of legal services at Cancer Legal Care, a Minnesota nonprofit that helps patients with medical debt and other financial challenges. “And the burden is falling hardest on the people who are least able to bear it.”
CentraCare’s flagship St. Cloud Hospital spent less than 0.25% on charity care, according to the analysis. That works out to $25 in patient aid for every $10,000 spent on hospital operations.
A growing burden
Charity care will become even more vital in coming years as Americans lose health coverage or can’t afford rising copays and deductibles. The nation’s uninsured rate has been ticking up and is expected to increase further as budget cuts pushed by President Trump force states to pare back Medicaid and other safety net programs.
Nationwide, healthcare debt — much of it from hospitals — burdens an estimated 100 million people. And charity care, which was historically aimed at the uninsured, is now critical to many people with health insurance who can’t afford their bills.
Hospital officials say it’s unfair to expect them to solve this affordability problem when many of their facilities are financially strained. “No amount of charity care from hospitals will ever fully meet the needs of uninsured or underinsured Minnesotans. The need is simply too great,” Minnesota Hospital Association spokesperson Tim Nelson said in a statement.
But Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said hospitals have a duty to increase charitable help for all needy patients in exchange for the tax breaks they receive.
“There is a benefit you get from being a nonprofit hospital in the state of Minnesota,” he said. “But do the people get the benefit?”
Several factors help explain why Minnesota hospitals provide so little financial aid. For one, job-based insurance and an expanded Medicaid program offer broad coverage. Hospitals in states with less government assistance and more uninsured people typically spend more on charity care.
Eligibility standards vary
But patients also face significant barriers accessing financial aid at many hospitals, including inconsistent eligibility standards and extensive applications, the Star Tribune-KFF Health News investigation found.
To qualify at many hospitals, patients must submit detailed personal information, including bank statements, retirement accounts, mortgage documents and estimates of other assets such as cars, homes or livestock.
Cori Roberts, who was sued by her healthcare provider after she was unable to make full payments for her treatment, thumbs through copies of her payment records at her home in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune
hide caption
toggle caption
Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune
And because Minnesota has not standardized the criteria for charity care, patients might receive aid at one hospital but not another. The investigation found that some hospitals give free care to patients with an annual household income of $47,000, while others cap it at about $15,000.
There are similar variations in charity care standards at hospitals nationwide, KFF Health News and other researchers have found. A recent analysis by the nonprofit Lown Institute found that one hospital in Boston set the limit for free care at less than half the level as another hospital just a few block away.
In Minnesota, had Roberts driven 30 miles east or 35 miles north, she would have found medical providers with more generous financial aid policies than CentraCare. But she didn’t know to look.
Roberts, now 49, has remarried and lives in a split-level home in St. Cloud decorated with inspirational plaques such as “Faith, Family, Friends.” CentraCare recently dropped the lawsuit against her, but only after she took out a loan against her retirement plan to pay off the medical debt. “It just feels very unfair,” she said.
CentraCare spokesperson Karna Fronden said medical privacy laws prevented her from discussing Roberts’ case. She also declined interview requests about the health system’s charity care spending.
In a statement, Fronden said CentraCare provides assistance in addition to charity care, such as helping enroll patients in insurance. “This helps provide broader, longer-term protection for patients,” she said.
Other hospital leaders said they serve their communities in ways besides forgiving medical bills, including training doctors and nurses and preserving money-losing services such as obstetrics and mental health care.
Hospitals in rural communities specifically also play an important role as employers, said Robert Pastor, chief executive of Rainy Lake Medical Center in International Falls, Minn.
“We are the second- or third-largest employer in town, running on razor-thin margins while navigating escalating labor and supply costs and routine underpayment by public programs,” Pastor said. “Meanwhile, many health insurers post billions in profits.”
“Rural hospitals like ours are often portrayed as though we are sitting on piles of cash and simply choosing not to spend it on charity care. That is far from the reality,” he said.
Hospital executives say they have a responsibility to ensure that limited resources for charity care go to patients who need them, said Travis Olsen, chief executive of Hendricks Community Hospital, near the South Dakota border.
Burdensome application process
To determine eligibility, some Minnesota hospitals consider only income, the Star Tribune-KFF Health News investigation found. But most demand information about patients’ bank accounts as well. More than two-thirds require even more information, including the value of retirement accounts, life insurance policies, property and vehicles.
In addition to copies of tax returns, W-2 forms, pay stubs and bank statements, Hendricks asks aid applicants 53 questions about their finances. These include questions about the make, model and value of vehicles; the current market value of farm equipment, livestock and land; and the purchase price and square footage of homes.
Other hospital applications ask patients to detail their monthly spending on food, utilities and other medical bills.
All these questions discourage patients from seeking assistance, said Jared Walker, founder of Dollar For, a nonprofit that helps people apply for charity care.
“The drop-off rates are much higher the more questions you ask and the more documentation you have to provide,” he said.
By contrast, most hospitals make it very easy for patients to click a button on the hospital website to pay their bills, Walker said. “Hospitals have optimized to get payment,” he said. “If you want to get on a payment plan, if you want to get on a credit card, it’s so easy.”
Back in St. Cloud, Roberts said that when she drives past CentraCare’s $200 million expansion at its Plaza campus in St. Cloud, she wonders why Minnesota hospitals don’t live up to higher standards.
“They have all the money,” she said. “But they can’t grant a good person some grace?”
This story was produced by KFF Health News and the Minnesota Star Tribune.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.
Iowa City (Iowa) Regina linebacker Tate Wallace committed to Minnesota on Sunday. The 6-2, 226-pounder from the class of 2027 chose the Golden Gophers over offers from Arizona State, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas State, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and many others.
-
Arizona4 minutes agoArizona Diamondbacks Gameday Thread, #40: 5/11 @ Rangers
-
Arkansas10 minutes agoSax star Merlon Devine joins Lupus Foundation of Arkansas to jazz up awareness month
-
California16 minutes agoGOP California governor candidates to face off at Clovis forum ahead of primary
-
Colorado22 minutes agoCoworking firm Industrious takes former WeWork space in Denver
-
Connecticut28 minutes agoNew Haven man found with ‘Super Mario’ meth pills to serve federal prison time
-
Delaware34 minutes agoWho governs matters: Why school board elections deserve your attention
-
Florida40 minutes agoSouth Florida officers sue Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, claiming details in ‘The Rip’ are too real
-
Georgia46 minutes agoGeorgia Democrats seek answers from Justice Department over Fulton election worker subpoena