In Minnesota, the federal prosecutor’s office has been seriously weakened because many experienced attorneys have quit or retired. These departures were sparked largely by disagreements with new priorities and directions from the U.S. Department of Justice under the current administration. Prosecutors say they were being pushed to focus on immigration enforcement and other politically driven policies, which conflicted with how they believe justice should be pursued. Because so many have left, the office no longer has enough staff to handle its usual workload.
Before this exodus began, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota had more than 40 prosecutors. Today, it has fewer than 24 — meaning nearly half of the legal team is gone. Many of these departures were career prosecutors who had spent years building knowledge and experience handling complex cases. Some left because they could not, “in good conscience,” continue working under what they saw as political interference. Others simply chose to retire early rather than stay in a job they felt had changed too much.
The departures have had real consequences. One of the most striking examples is the case of Cory Allen McKay, a 47-year-old man with a long history of violent crime. McKay had more than a dozen prior felony convictions dating back decades and was facing serious federal drug trafficking charges that could have resulted in a sentence of up to 25 years in prison. Because the prosecutor assigned to his case retired, the office abruptly dropped the charges. McKay was released from custody and walked free without having his trial.
According to local lawyers and law enforcement leaders, this kind of outcome is likely to happen more often as the workload becomes harder to manage. With fewer prosecutors, the office is now forced to pick and choose which cases it can pursue. Some are being dismissed completely, while others are reduced through plea deals or delayed because there aren’t enough staff to handle them. Defense attorneys have even started pushing for faster trial dates, trying to take advantage of the situation by forcing prosecutorial responses that may not be ready.
Officials within the U.S. Attorney’s Office have acknowledged the strain. Rather than bringing in new full-time prosecutors, the office has at times brought in temporary attorneys from other states to help cover urgent matters. Judges have also been asked to delay hearings so remaining prosecutors have more time. This situation, though, is far from ideal, and many critics say it weakens the justice system’s ability to hold people accountable — especially those charged with violent, drug or fraud offenses.
Local leaders and legal experts have raised serious concerns about what this means for public safety. They worry that releasing or dismissing cases against defendants accused of serious crimes could put communities at risk. One lawyer who used to work as a prosecutor noted that cases against dangerous offenders, gang members, and sophisticated fraudsters might not be pursued with the same consistency or focus that was possible when the office was fully staffed.
Part of the controversy stems from disagreements about the role of federal prosecutors and how they should prioritize cases. Some former prosecutors expressed frustration that policy choices from higher levels of the Justice Department were influencing their work, particularly in ways that shifted focus toward immigration enforcement over other types of crime. These tensions were highlighted after federal officials blocked a joint investigation into a fatal shooting involving an immigration agent, a move that angered many career attorneys in the office.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that aggressive enforcement — including in immigration matters — improves public safety overall. But critics say that an emphasis on one type of crime should not come at the expense of prosecuting other serious criminal activity. The result, they say, has been a justice office that is stretched too thin and unable to pursue cases with the thoroughness and attention they once did.
In short, the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office now faces a staffing crisis that is forcing it to drop or delay cases and inadvertently allow some defendants to avoid trial. Prosecutors who remain are trying to manage as best they can, but many fear the damage to the justice system could be long lasting unless stability returns.
