Six federal prosecutors in Minnesota have resigned in protest over the U.S. Department of Justice’s handling of the federal investigation into the killing of a Minnesota woman by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, marking a significant moment of dissent within the Justice Department and escalating tensions over federal law enforcement actions in the state.
Lead Resignations Spark Outcry Over Investigation Direction
At least six prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota submitted their resignations this week, including Joe Thompson, a former acting U.S. attorney for the district who was appointed on an interim basis by President Trump in spring 2025. Thompson had been leading a major welfare-fraud investigation resulting in the convictions of roughly 60 defendants, primarily of Somali descent.
According to people familiar with the matter, the departing prosecutors were concerned about the Trump administration’s handling of the shooting probe, including pressure to investigate the wife of the deceased woman rather than pursue a civil-rights investigation into the conduct of the ICE agent involved.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called Thompson a “principled public servant” and described his resignation as a “huge loss” for the state.
The Fatal ICE Shooting That Ignited the Dispute
The resignations stem from a highly controversial incident on January 7, 2026, when ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, on a residential street in Minneapolis. Federal officials have said Ross acted in self-defense; however, local authorities and many community leaders have contested that account, stating Good was attempting to drive away from the encounter.
The shooting was captured on video from several angles and quickly ignited protests and sharp criticism of federal law enforcement tactics. A Quinnipiac University survey released this week found that a majority of voters — 53% — believe the shooting was not justified, while 35% believe it was justified. The poll also revealed significant partisan divides in opinion.
Breakdown in Cooperation and Investigation
Following the shooting, federal and state officials clashed over investigative control. Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) initially participated in reviewing the use of force but withdrew after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took exclusive control and state investigators were denied access to evidence and interviews.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department, through Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, issued a statement saying there was no basis at this time for a criminal civil-rights investigation into the ICE agent’s conduct.
The decision not to pursue a civil-rights probe — a role typically led by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — has contributed to broader resignations within the department, including departures among senior civil-rights prosecutors in Washington, D.C., according to multiple reporting outlets.
Broader Impact on the U.S. Attorney’s Office
Legal experts and former officials have warned that the departure of multiple experienced prosecutors could significantly weaken the Justice Department’s capacity in Minnesota just as immigration and fraud cases surge. B. Todd Jones, a former U.S. attorney for Minnesota, described the resignations as a “disaster” for federal law enforcement in the state.
Thompson’s departure also affects ongoing, unrelated prosecutions. His leadership in the welfare-fraud investigation had been one of the office’s most active and high-profile efforts, and his resignation — along with that of his deputy — could slow or complicate those prosecutions.
Legal and Political Ramifications
The shooting and subsequent resignations have amplified political pressure nationwide. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has publicly criticized the federal response to the shooting and called for reducing or ending ICE operations in the city.
In addition, the state of Minnesota has filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, attempting to halt what its officials describe as an unlawful surge of federal agents operating in the state.
The incident has placed renewed focus on the protocols governing federal law enforcement use of deadly force and the mechanisms for oversight and accountability. Critics argue that barring state investigators and declining a civil-rights review undermines public confidence and transparency in the justice system.
