WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi is leaving the Department of Justice and will be replaced for now by President Donald Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, the president announced Thursday.

“Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year. Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country,” the president wrote on social media.

Bondi will depart for an “important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future,” Trump added.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, “a very talented and respected Legal Mind,” will move up in an acting role, he said.

Blanche thanked the president on social media and praised Bondi for doing her job “with strength and conviction” adding he was “grateful for her leadership and friendship.”

Trump did not indicate who he would nominate to succeed Bondi on a permanent basis.

Bondi’s exit follows the departure last month of another high-profile Cabinet member, Kristi Noem, whom Trump reassigned from the position of secretary of Homeland Security. 

Epstein files

Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, oversaw the legally mandated release of government files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who surrounded himself with powerful figures, including Trump, even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in 2008. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

Trump’s name appeared thousands of times in the files, along with those of numerous celebrities, writers and tech giants. Trump denies knowing about Epstein’s scheme to groom and solicit hundreds of young girls for sex.

Shortly after being installed as attorney general, Bondi touted her access to the Epstein files, telling Fox News in February 2025 that the sex offender’s client list was “sitting on my desk,” and distributing binders marked “Epstein Files: Phase I” to conservative political commentators.

By July, the department announced it had found no leads in the files warranting further investigation and that no further information would be made public. The announcement set off a firestorm in Congress that eventually led to the bipartisan passage of legislation mandating the department to release millions of documents related to Epstein.

Bondi received heavy criticism for missing the legally mandated deadline to release the files, and for a botched rollout that disclosed the names of several victims. 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed Bondi on March 4 to testify before the committee for its separate investigation of the files. Bondi appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door briefing with the committee that quickly turned heated, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Dem slams ‘legacy of failure’

Lawmakers released an avalanche of statements upon Trump’s announcement that Bondi will no longer hold the highest law enforcement role in the United States.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, slammed Bondi’s tenure as a “profound betrayal not only of the Department of Justice but of the American people the Department exists to serve.”

Bondi’s “legacy of failure” includes the firing of prosecutors and federal law enforcement agents who investigated crimes committed leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Raskin said in a statement Thursday. Three FBI agents sued this week over their ouster.

“This shameful legacy is cemented by her grotesque mishandling of the Epstein files,” Raskin said, alleging Bondi protected powerful figures by redacting their names, yet allowing names of victims to be publicly disclosed.

Bondi and Raskin shared a heated exchange over the Epstein files during a Feb. 11 oversight hearing, at which she called Raskin a “washed-up loser lawyer.”

Bondi built a reputation of combativeness and an unwavering loyalty to Trump during hearings before lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, thanked Bondi for being responsive to his oversight records requests and said she “helped bring violent crime down to historic lows.”

“The Judiciary Committee stands ready to advance President Trump’s next Attorney General nominee,” Grassley said.

The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in court Thursday that it is sharing sensitive voter data with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizen voters. But a DOJ lawyer denied the department is building a national voter database.

The Justice Department has demanded states provide full copies of their voter lists, including sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers. It has sued 29 states and the District of Columbia for refusing to turn over the data. At least a dozen other states have provided their lists.

During a hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking Rhode Island’s voter data, DOJ attorney Eric Neff said the information would be shared with Homeland Security. U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy had asked whether the Justice Department could send the list to Homeland Security with instructions to search for noncitizens.

“Yes, and we intend to do so,” Neff said.

He added that the Justice Department and Homeland Security already have a “use agreement” in place for such sharing.

Three federal judges have so far rejected the Justice Department’s demands for state voter data, and no judge has sided with the department. DOJ has appealed those decisions and oral arguments are scheduled for later this spring after the Trump administration pushed for quick decisions ahead of the midterm elections.

The Justice Department has said it needs the voter data to determine whether states are complying with federal voting rights laws that require states to regularly update and clean their lists. The department has voiced particular determination to root out non-citizen voting, which is extremely rare.

In September, Homeland Security told Stateline in an unsigned statement that the Justice Department was sharing voter data with the agency in a collaborative effort.

But Neff’s courtroom statement on Thursday appeared to mark the first on-record acknowledgment of the data sharing. CBS News also reported on Thursday that the two agencies were nearing a final agreement on sharing voter data for immigration and criminal investigations.

The Justice Department and Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment from Stateline.

In recent weeks, a Justice Department lawyer sidestepped a question about whether voter data would be used for immigration purposes. On March 3 during a hearing in a lawsuit over Minnesota’s voter roll, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez asked DOJ lawyer James Tucker whether there was intention to use the data for immigration enforcement.

“Not to my knowledge, no, your honor, not with the data we are getting,” Tucker said, according to a transcript. But he added that some federal prosecutors were working with Homeland Security.

During a federal court hearing in Maine on Thursday, Tucker said the Justice Department was not creating a national voter database. At the same time, he didn’t rule out voter data being checked against federal databases.

“Again, that’s something that’s been routine the United States has done in the past,” Tucker said.

Since President Donald Trump took office last year, Homeland Security has refashioned an online program previously used to verify whether immigrants qualified for government benefits into a tool that can verify U.S. citizenship. Called SAVE, the program is capable of checking millions of voters against federal databases for citizenship information.

DHS has encouraged states to run their voter lists through the program. Some Democratic state election officials have expressed concerns about the program and point to instances where SAVE has wrongly flagged a voter as a potential noncitizen.

“They are initiating litigation in states all around the country, seeking the same information in sort of this cookie-cutter way,” Jonathan Bolton, an attorney in the Maine Attorney General’s Office, said during Thursday’s federal court hearing in Maine.

“Which suggests that the purpose is not to investigate specific concerns about specific states, but it is to compile this sort of national voter registration database,” Bolton said.

Bolton was representing Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows in the Justice Department’s lawsuit for Maine’s voter roll.

Rhode Island Current reporter Alexander Castro contributed reporting. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun connecting its push to obtain sensitive personal data on millions of voters to whether the upcoming midterm elections will be fair and secure, laying the groundwork for the Trump administration to potentially cast doubt on the results.

The Justice Department has sued 29 states and the District of Columbia over their refusal to provide unredacted voter rolls that include the driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers of voters. The department has lost three of those lawsuits so far this year.

But as the Justice Department begins appealing the losses, it has filed emergency motions warning the “security and sanctity of elections” would be questioned in those states — California, Michigan and Oregon — without immediate rulings.

Election experts told Stateline that federal appellate courts are unlikely to move quickly for the Justice Department. Instead, the department’s court filings suggest that without the data, the Trump administration may question the validity of the midterm elections in November.

“Absent a final Court determination on this matter there is no other process to ensure a fair election in 2026,” the Trump administration’s motions say.

President Donald Trump has made identifying noncitizen voting, an extremely rare occurrence, a priority of his administration, and the Justice Department has said the detailed personal data is necessary to ensure states are properly maintaining their voter rolls. At least a dozen Republican-led states have provided the information.

Democratic election officials, and some Republicans, have condemned the demands as an invasion of voters’ privacy and have voiced concerns the Trump administration plans to use the information to target political opponents or create a national voter list. Other Republican election officials and the Trump administration and have downplayed privacy concerns and said the data will help ensure only eligible voters cast ballots.

The DOJ’s sense of urgency comes after the department spent months sending letters to state officials demanding voter data, followed by successive rounds of lawsuits against states that refused to comply — all in what department officials said was the pursuit of noncitizen voters.

“We know this isn’t a big problem nationwide,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

“We know the states have adequate safeguards,” Becker said. “We see Republicans — Republicans — coming out and saying this repeatedly. So there is no problem that urgently needs to be solved in advance of the election.”

But the Trump administration has increased its attention on elections in recent weeks. In early February, Trump voiced a desire to “nationalize” elections. He demanded Congress pass a proof of citizenship voter registration requirement and strict voter ID rules. The U.S. Senate is expected to debate the bill next week, but it is unlikely to have enough votes to advance.

The FBI has also seized ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia, and the Arizona Senate complied with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to its 2020 audit of that year’s election results in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Michigan responded to the Justice Department in a March 6 court filing by asserting that its case involves no emergency. Lawyers representing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, wrote that the appeal doesn’t challenge any state election law or rule and that the outcome of the case would have little to no effect on the 2026 election.

In response to an interview request, Benson’s office referred Stateline to a news release that quoted the secretary as urging election officials across the country “to stand up to the federal government’s overreach and to safeguard citizens’ private voting information we’ve been entrusted to protect.”

Oregon Democratic Secretary of State Tobias Read said in an emailed statement to Stateline that he’s “confident in our case, and trust the courts will continue to uphold the Constitution and the privacy rights of all Oregonians.”

California Democratic Secretary of State Shirley Weber didn’t respond to an interview request.

Race against time

Federal judges have so far ruled that even though states must perform maintenance on their voter rolls, federal law doesn’t give the Justice Department authority to obtain full voter lists.

While the Justice Department now claims the security and sanctity of upcoming elections necessitates the need for speed, the department hasn’t alleged any states are violating federal voter list maintenance requirements, said Derek Clinger, senior counsel and director of partnerships at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

“This is the first time in all the litigation that DOJ has claimed that there’s an urgent need to resolve the cases,” said Clinger, who is tracking the voter data lawsuits.

Even if courts ultimately determine that states must provide the voter data, it’s not clear that the Justice Department could make effective use of it before the midterms.

Federal law generally prohibits states from conducting significant purges of registered voters less than 90 days before primary and general elections. For example, that period will begin in Michigan on May 6 ahead of the state’s Aug. 4 primary election.

The Justice Department has asked for all court documents in its Michigan appeal to be filed by April 1. Even if the appellate court immediately ruled in the department’s favor, only 35 days would be left until the pre-primary blackout period.

Lawyers for Michigan wrote in its court filing that it is “dubious” that any serious assessment of the state’s 7.3 million voters could occur in that time frame.

Still, Rosario Palacios, a naturalized U.S. citizen who leads the good-government group Common Cause Georgia, said she’s worried the federal government could wrongly flag her or others like her as noncitizens if the Justice Department eventually obtains her state’s unredacted voter roll.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security operates a powerful online program called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) that it uses to verify citizenship. It has previously invited states to run their voter rolls through the program, and the Trump administration in September confirmed the Justice Department is sharing state voter roll data with Homeland Security. But SAVE has faced criticism from some election officials for mistakenly flagging U.S. citizens for review.

After the department sued Georgia for refusing to turn over its data, Palacios and Common Cause intervened in the lawsuit to oppose the demand.

Palacios said in an interview she’s worried some may choose not to participate in the election. “The fear alone of this is going to make people withdraw.”

Some GOP states share voter data

The Justice Department has offered few details about how it intends to analyze the voter data it obtains. The agency didn’t answer questions from Stateline and declined to comment.

Idaho Republican Secretary of State Phil McGrane last month said he wouldn’t turn over voter data. McGrane declined an interview request, but in a Feb. 26 letter to the Justice Department he raised concerns about data security.

“While I appreciate the Department’s representations that Idaho’s data will be safeguarded, I cannot take that now-apparent risk in the absence of clear legal duty to do so,” McGrane wrote.

Some Republican election officials have decided to share their state’s data, however.

Eric Neff, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s Voting Section, wrote in a March 2 court filing that 18 states had either shared voter data or planned to do so soon. He didn’t name those states.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which tracks the voter data requests, has identified at least a dozen states that have provided the data: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Two of those states — Alaska and Texas — provided their voter rolls after signing a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with the Justice Department.

The document, marked confidential, says that after the state provides its voter roll, the department agrees to test, analyze and assess the information. Each state agrees to “clean” its voter roll within 45 days by removing any ineligible voters. States would then resubmit their list.

Tennessee Elections Coordinator Mark Goins, who works under Tennessee Republican Secretary of State Tre Hargett, said in an interview that the state had shared its voter data after concluding that DOJ was entitled to it as part of its authority to enforce federal voting law. But Goins said Tennessee had decided against signing the memorandum of understanding because of concerns that the agreement conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act, which sets rules on when election officials can remove voters from their lists.

“When you’re dealing with this much data, and we have 4 million registered voters here, there could be a false flag and you certainly don’t remove anyone improperly,” Goins said.

In Texas, it’s unclear when the Justice Department will provide feedback on the state’s voter list. The state is currently in the preelection blackout period on sweeping changes to its voter registration list ahead of a May 26 primary runoff election, a spokesperson for Texas Republican Secretary of State Jane Nelson told Stateline.

Texas already ran its voter roll of more than 18 million voters through Homeland Security’s SAVE program last year, identifying 2,724 potential noncitizens registered to vote. County election officials were then left to investigate the flagged voters.

Christopher McGinn, executive director of the Texas Association of County Election Officials, said he’s unsure what would happen now, given that the state’s voter roll was recently examined by SAVE.

“Especially since those noncitizens were, in theory, cleaned up,” McGinn said.

In Alaska, the decision to share voter data has produced blowback from some state lawmakers. The state constitution guarantees a right to privacy that “shall not be infringed.”

Alaska Director of Elections Carol Beecher faced skeptical lawmakers during hearings last week that probed her refusal to waive attorney-client privilege to divulge the legal advice she received before providing the voter roll. In response to questions from Stateline, Beecher’s office referred back to her remarks to lawmakers.

“At this point, I am not willing to waive that privilege,” Beecher said at an Alaska Senate hearing.

Alaska state Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat who was among those who questioned Beecher, in an interview predicted the state will soon face lawsuits challenging the data sharing. He also said lawmakers are looking into pursuing legislation that would direct state officials to seek the return of the information from the Justice Department.

“I just think there’s a total lack of trust in what the federal government will do with this information,” Wielechowski said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration must explain to a circuit court before the end of March exactly why it appealed a lower court’s ruling that allows Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly to keep his retirement rank and pay while a First Amendment case about the “Don’t Give Up The Ship” video plays out.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s order gives the Department of Justice until March 30 to provide a series of documents in its appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction.

That ruling, from Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court, said Defense Department officials, including Secretary Pete Hegseth, erred when trying to apply rules that affect active-duty military members to Kelly, a retired Navy Captain.  

“Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces,” Leon wrote. “Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!”

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush. 

DOD seeks to downgrade Kelly retirement rank

The lawsuit began earlier this year after the Defense Department began proceedings to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay for appearing in the 90-second video.

The six Democrats, all of whom are former members of the military or intelligence agencies, said in the video they understood the people working in those fields “are under enormous stress and pressure right now.” 

“Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk,” they said. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”

They went on to say the “laws are clear” and that illegal orders can and must be refused. The video ended with them saying, “Don’t Give up the Ship,’ a long-held phrase in the U.S. Navy.

The Democrats’ video infuriated President Donald Trump, leading the Defense Department to open an investigation into Kelly.

Justice Department officials also launched an investigation into Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander.

The Justice Department failed to get a grand jury to indict the lawmakers earlier this month. 

Kelly cites effects on millions of retired veterans

Kelly wrote on social media Tuesday, after the Justice Department filed its appeal on behalf of the Defense Department, that the Trump administration didn’t “know when to quit.” 

“A federal judge told Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth that they violated my constitutional rights and chilled the free speech of millions of retired veterans,” Kelly wrote. “There is only one reason to appeal that ruling: to keep trampling on the free speech rights of retired veterans and silence dissent. I went to war to defend Americans’ constitutional rights and I won’t back down from this fight, no matter how far they want to take it.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats threw a spotlight Thursday on President Donald Trump’s attempts to yank funds away from minority-serving institutions, as the administration tries to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies in schools.

Hawaii U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono hosted an unofficial hearing that gathered advocates, leaders, experts and students to sound the alarm on the consequences of cutting funding for the more than 800 MSIs, as they are known, that enroll millions of students of color. Many are from low-income households or are the first in their families to attend college.

Hirono blasted the administration’s broader efforts to end DEI efforts in schools, as well as larger ongoing actions to axe the 46-year-old U.S. Department of Education.  

Trump “has been attacking these programs and is now working to illegally eliminate the programs entirely, not to mention they would like to eliminate the entire federal Department of Education,” she said. 

In September, the department decided to gut and reprogram $350 million in discretionary funds that support minority-serving institutions, over claims that the programs for Black, Asian, Indigenous and Hispanic students and more are “racially discriminatory.”

Soon after, the department moved to redirect $495 million in additional funding to historically Black colleges and universities as well as tribal colleges.

Adding fuel to the fire, the Justice Department issued an opinion in December finding several grant programs for minority-serving institutions to be “unconstitutional.” 

Education Secretary Linda McMahon concurred with that opinion, and the agency said later that month it was “currently evaluating the full impact” of the opinion on affected programs.

‘Plainly cruel’

Mike Hoa Nguyen, associate professor of education and principal investigator for the MSI Data Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, said MSIs are “the backbone of American higher education.” 

Nguyen said these institutions “provide critical pathways to academic opportunity and achievement for millions of students of color, particularly those from low-income households and those who are often the first in their families to go to college.” 

He noted that as a result of the funds being reprogrammed, MSIs have been left “struggling to figure out how to explain the continuity of vital services — services that have been empirically demonstrated to improve student learning, boost academic performance in the classroom and ultimately lead them to graduate.” 

Nguyen added that “these funds are about providing the basic resources so students can learn, grow, succeed and contribute to our society and our economy, and eliminating these resources in general — and in such an abrupt manner — isn’t just misaligned and misguided, it’s plainly cruel.” 

Rowena Tomaneng, president of Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education, said “essential programs nationwide have been shuttered or destabilized” as a consequence of the yanked funding.  

“These programs are not supplemental — they are essential to closing equity gaps for first-generation and low-income students,” said Tomaneng, whose organization advocates for Asian American and Pacific Islander students, faculty and staff across higher education. 

“Their loss will reverse hard-won gains, widen disparities and weaken institutions that serve as gateways to opportunity,” Tomaneng said. 

Senators send letter to McMahon

The hearing came a week after Hirono, along with Sens. Alex Padilla of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, led nearly two dozen colleagues in urging McMahon to reverse her department’s decision to unilaterally halt federal funding for MSIs.

“This decision is yet another example of this Administration attempting to circumvent Congress and its obligations to follow the law,” the senators wrote. “Unilaterally deciding that long-standing programs are unconstitutional, absent a ruling from the judiciary, sets a dangerous precedent and disrupts needed support that colleges and students rely on.” 

Meanwhile, Trump signed into law earlier in February a spending package that funds the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year.

The measure also “increases funding for all Title III and V programs that support HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal colleges, and other minority-serving institutions,” per a summary from Senate Appropriations Committee Democrats. 

Hirono noted that “only Congress can eliminate these programs, and Congress has decided not to do so,” during the hearing. 

“In fact, we provided additional funding for these programs in the fiscal year (20)26 spending bill reiterating our support for them, but of course, the Trump regime doesn’t care about Congress’ priorities,” she said. 

The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. 

The U.S. Department of Justice, citing evidence inconsistent with its earlier allegations, dropped felony charges against two men accused of assaulting a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent before the agent shot one of the men in the leg.

U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen wrote in a brief Thursday filing that “newly discovered evidence” was found to be “materially inconsistent” with the government’s allegations against Alfredo Aljorna, 26, and Julio Sosa-Celis, 24, about the Jan. 14 shooting in north Minneapolis. The case was dismissed Friday by a district court judge.

Rosen filed a motion for the case to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the government will not be able to press the same charges against the men again.

The federal government has significantly shifted the details of what happened since the shooting on Jan. 14. The federal Homeland Security narrative in the immediate aftermath of the shooting incorrectly identified Sosa-Celis as the driver of the car and a subject of a “targeted traffic stop.” The complaint later indicated that the officers mistook Aljorna, who was driving the car, for another Latino man uninvolved in the incident.

At the time of the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described the incident as an “attempted murder of federal law enforcement.” Similarly, Noem and other Trump administration officials accused Renee Good and Alex Pretti — also killed by federal officers — as domestic terrorists, though evidence for the allegations never surfaced. Rosen, who was nominated by President Trump to be U.S. attorney in Minnesota, leads an office facing a staff exodus after an ICE officer shot and killed Good last month — at least 14 federal prosecutors have resigned, reportedly in part due to disgust over senior DOJ officials’ handling of the investigation.

Rosen didn’t detail the newly discovered evidence, but noted that the allegations in the complaint were “based on information” presented to FBI agent Timothy G. Schanz, who had said in a sworn affidavit that the ICE agent said that Sosa-Celis and Aljorna repeatedly hit him with a broom and a snow shovel. The ICE agent told the FBI that he then “simultaneously fired” one round towards the men as they began to run toward the house.

Schanz’s affidavit said that law enforcement on the scene were unable to find any bullet holes in the house, though at a hearing, Sosa-Celis’ attorney showed photographs depicting bullet holes through the front door of the duplex and in an interior wall, the Star Tribune reported.

Both men have denied the agent’s account, maintaining that they didn’t attack the ICE agent and that the agent shot Sosa-Celis in the leg through the closed door of their duplex.

The details that have not been disputed by the men or the ICE agent: The agent had shot Sosa-Celis in the leg on Jan. 14 following a car chase and scuffle with Aljorna; ICE agents began the chase when they mistook Aljorna for someone else they were targeting. The shooting happened on the 600 block of 24th Avenue North in north Minneapolis, at a duplex where the two men, both Venezuelan nationals, lived with their partners.

Sosa-Celis’ attorney previously told the Star Tribune that he learned that the officer who shot Sosa-Celis is under investigation for unreasonable use of force.

The two men were released from detention by a judge on Feb. 4 and immediately re-detained by ICE, who took them back to Sherburne County jail, attorney Brian Clark said at the time.

The incident drew over 100 protestors to the scene after the news of the shooting quickly spread. Federal agents deployed tear gas and flash bangs and at least two people were detained by federal agents after someone threw fireworks at the agents; at least two vehicles believed to be used by federal officers were vandalized. At least six people have been arrested and charged for stealing from and vandalizing the federal vehicles, the Star Tribune reported.