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.
Minnesota
Medical services in limbo for thousands of providers amid Minnesota fraud crisis
The Minnesota Department of Human Services is reexamining over 5,000 Medicaid service providers across the state in an effort to combat fraud.
The federal government said it would pull $2 billion in annual Medicaid funding from Minnesota in January if the state didn’t make changes.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services set out to revalidate thousands of providers in programs deemed high risk for fraud by asking providers to submit verification paperwork and making unannounced site visits. The deadline passed on Sunday.
The latest data, published on May 27, shows 1,009 providers approved, 1,151 disenrolled and over 3,000 providers with pending applications.
Paige Berland and Camille Heyman run Minnesota Behavioral Specialists, providing autism care to children through two locations in the metro area. The women say that after submitting their paperwork, they received letters from DHS with determinations for both locations: the Bloomington center was terminated and the Eagan office was approved.
“It doesn’t make sense, everything is the same minus the location,” Berland said. “So why was one approved and one wasn’t approved?”
The termination letter said the Bloomington center was denied because they failed to disclose a managing employee during a site visit. Berland disputes that and said she already submitted an appeal.
“We were told to keep running, keep continuing as we are while we go through this process,” she said. “It just means that we don’t have the money coming in.”
Josh Berg with Accessible Space says they’re also in limbo. Berg said they offer integrated community supports, which means caretakers provide in-unit assistance for people with spinal cord injuries and disabilities.
“Most of the folks that we support are wheelchair-bound,” Berg said. “Helping with meals, helping with medications, helping them just live their lives.”
Berg said that of the seven locations where people are housed, the Department of Human Services terminated five and approved two. He believes the timeline to conduct this revalidation process was too aggressive. He said Accessible Space has also submitted an appeal.
“We’re not able to bill for services, we’re not able to start new services for anybody or change any of the supports that they receive,” he said.
Both Berg and Berland say they agree fraud needs to be dealt with, but they hope Minnesotans who truly need services aren’t left without the services they need.
“Not just the clients rely on services, but the families do too, so we can’t stop services; that’s not an option on our plate,” Berland said. “We want to continue to provide these services; they are medically necessary.”
The Minnesota Department of Human Services said a disenrollment letter could be sent for a few reasons, including failure to submit revalidation application after two notification attempts, failure to provide all requested documents within the required timeframe and failure to meet the criteria required during an on-site visit.
A spokesperson for the Department of Human Services said it’s currently in the process of compiling data from the thousands of applications, but didn’t say when the department would share those final numbers.
Minnesota
Minnesota GOP disavows Chauvin moment of silence at convention
Social media slams Netflix’s Kevin Hart roast
Some online users shared their reactions to jokes told about George Floyd and Charlie Kirk at Netflix’s “The Roast of Kevin Hart.”
The Minnesota Republican Party is distancing itself from a moment of silence held for Derek Chauvin during its state convention, saying the gesture was not part of leadership planning, not included in the official program, and should not be interpreted as a party position.
GOP officials said in a Monday, June 1 Facebook post that the recognition of the former Minneapolis police officer, who was convicted in the killing of George Floyd in 2020, emerged from a spontaneous delegate motion on the convention floor and was not initiated or endorsed by leadership.
The controversy quickly escalated after state leaders, civil rights attorneys and Democratic lawmakers condemned the action, describing it as deeply harmful to Floyd’s family and inconsistent with accountability under the law.
The moment of silence took place during the party’s annual gathering in Duluth on May 30 and comes just days after the sixth anniversary of Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, an event that reshaped national debates over policing and racial justice.
Republican Party of Minnesota says gesture was not leadership action
In a statement, the Republican Party of Minnesota said the recognition of Derek Chauvin originated as a delegate request during floor proceedings at the convention in Duluth and was handled under standard rules of order.
Party officials emphasized that convention leadership, including chair Danny Nadeau, did not propose the motion. The statement said leadership’s role was procedural only, and that presiding over the motion did not reflect agreement with or endorsement of its subject matter.
Officials reiterated that the convention agenda itself did not include any planned recognition of Chauvin and said the episode should not be interpreted as a leadership-driven decision or policy stance.
Minnesota attorney general calls action ‘profound cruelty’
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who led the prosecution of Chauvin, sharply criticized the gesture, calling it an “act of profound cruelty” toward the Floyd family.
Ellison said the timing, so close to the anniversary of Floyd’s death, compounded the harm.
He said honoring Chauvin “dishonors the memory of George Floyd and wounds his loved ones all over again,” and called it “disturbing” to recognize someone convicted of violating his oath as a police officer.
Ellison also said the action was “disrespectful” to law enforcement officers who serve honorably, and reaffirmed that courts had already upheld Chauvin’s conviction through multiple appeals.
Broader backlash and political fallout
Democratic state Rep. Jamie Long called the moment of silence “disgusting,” arguing that Republicans chose to honor a convicted murderer rather than victims of violence or service members.
The gesture also drew criticism from civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, who represented George Floyd’s family in its civil case after his death. The attorneys called the moment of silence immoral and demanded a retraction and apology, saying it disrespected both the Floyd family and the broader public record of Chauvin’s conviction.
Floyd was killed on May 25, 2020, when Chauvin, a white former Minneapolis police officer, knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes. Chauvin was later convicted of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, and sentenced to 22½ years in state prison.
The killing sparked global protests and became a defining moment in the Black Lives Matter movement and debates over policing in the United States.
Chauvin’s conviction has been upheld through multiple appeals, including a denial by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023, and he is serving his sentence in federal custody.
Party officials say despite the controversy, their focus remains on candidate endorsements and upcoming elections, not the floor action that triggered the backlash.
Reporter Anthony Thompson can be reached at ajthompson@usatodayco.com, or on X @athompsonUSAT.
Minnesota
Where to watch Chicago White Sox vs Minnesota Twins: TV channel, start time, streaming for Jun. 02
What to know about MLB’s ABS robot umpire strike zone system
MLB launches ABS challenge system as players test robot umpire calls in a groundbreaking season.
The 2026 MLB season has surpassed the quarter mark, and after each team’s first 40 games, there’s plenty of reasons to tune in all summer long.
Chicago White Sox slugger Munetaka Murakami has already proven doubters wrong by launching 17 home runs, Pittsburgh’s Paul Skenes consistently looks like the best version of himself on the mound and Milwaukee ace Jacob Misiorowski is throwing harder than any starter in the majors.
The MLB action continues on Tuesday as the Chicago White Sox visit the Minnesota Twins.
Here’s everything you need to know to tune in for the first pitch.
See USA TODAY’s sortable MLB schedule to filter by team or division.
What time is Chicago White Sox vs Minnesota Twins?
First pitch between the Minnesota Twins and Chicago White Sox is scheduled for 7:40 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday, Jun. 02.
How to watch Chicago White Sox vs Minnesota Twins on Tuesday
All times Eastern and accurate as of Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 6:33 a.m.
Watch MLB all season long with Fubo
MLB regional blackout restrictions apply
MLB scores, results
MLB scores for Jun. 02 games are available on usatoday.com . Here’s how to access today’s results:
See scores, results for all of today’s games.
-
New Mexico2 minutes agoCumbres & Toltec to begin summer season June 9
-
North Carolina4 minutes ago‘Bonsai in the Blue Ridge’ exhibit brings dozens of displays to North Carolina Arboretum
-
North Dakota10 minutes ago
And he’s off
-
Ohio17 minutes agoThe purge? Ohio moves to downgrade non-domiciled CDLs
-
Oklahoma20 minutes agoWhat Oklahoma Does Better Than Texas and Why It Matters
-
Oregon25 minutes agoAmid warnings of future cuts, University of Oregon trustees approve next year’s budget
-
Pennsylvania32 minutes agoState Awards Contract To Resurface Major Doylestown Borough Street
-
Rhode Island35 minutes agoShifting Sands in Rhode Island – Rhode Island Monthly