Federal Prosecutors Sidelined in High-Profile Minneapolis Shooting Investigation
Unconventional Assignment Raises Questions About Justice Department’s Commitment
In a decision that’s raising eyebrows among former Justice Department officials and legal experts, the investigation into the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents has taken an unusual turn. Career prosecutors who specialize in excessive force cases within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division—the very experts trained for exactly this type of investigation—have been largely excluded from the probe. Instead, the division’s leadership has assigned Brandon Wrobleski, an employment discrimination lawyer with no background in federal criminal cases, to work alongside two local prosecutors from the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney’s office. This staffing choice represents a significant break from how the Justice Department has historically handled cases involving allegations of excessive force by law enforcement, and it’s sparked concerns that the investigation may not receive the serious, experienced attention such a high-profile case demands. The decision is particularly troubling given the circumstances surrounding Pretti’s death and the public scrutiny it has generated.
The Tragic Death That Sparked National Outrage
Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, was shot and killed by two U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in Minneapolis on January 24 during an immigration operation. The incident quickly became a national story when video footage of the encounter went viral, directly contradicting initial claims made by the Department of Homeland Security that Pretti had brandished a weapon. What made the situation even more concerning was that this marked the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal officers in Minneapolis within the same year—earlier, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent had shot and killed Renee Good as she attempted to drive away in her vehicle. Initially, the Department of Homeland Security took the lead on investigating its own agents’ conduct, a clear conflict of interest that raised immediate red flags. Secretary Kristi Noem further inflamed the situation by making premature public statements accusing Pretti of “domestic terrorism” and falsely claiming he had reached for his firearm—statements that the video evidence later contradicted. Under mounting public pressure and criticism, DHS and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced in late January that the FBI and the Civil Rights Division would open their own investigation into Pretti’s death.
The Puzzle of Unconventional Staffing Choices
The assignment of Brandon Wrobleski to this case has left many former Justice Department attorneys scratching their heads. According to his LinkedIn profile, Wrobleski joined the Justice Department’s employment litigation section only in August of the previous year, coming from the Republican-controlled Virginia Attorney General’s office. His section typically handles civil investigations and litigation involving workplace discrimination—a far cry from criminal investigations into police shootings. Remarkably, by December, just four months after joining, he had been promoted to acting deputy chief of the employment litigation section, a timeline that former division lawyers describe as “unheard of,” particularly for someone without a background in civil rights litigation. His current caseload includes leading litigation against Minneapolis Public Schools over alleged racial discrimination in teacher employment decisions—again, civil employment law, not criminal excessive force cases. While the Justice Department spokesperson confirmed Wrobleski’s assignment and noted that Robert Keenan, the criminal section’s Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, is also involved, sources familiar with the matter indicate that the rank-and-file career prosecutors with extensive experience in color-of-law violations and excessive force cases have been largely shut out from meaningful participation in the investigation.
Historical Precedent and Broken Traditions
The Civil Rights Division’s criminal section has a long and distinguished history of handling the nation’s most high-profile excessive force cases. This same division successfully prosecuted the officers responsible for George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis and the Louisville Police officers involved in Breonna Taylor’s death. Under the Justice Department’s own manual, the Pretti case would typically be classified as a matter of “national interest” because it involves allegations of a color-of-law violation resulting in death—exactly the type of case that would normally be jointly investigated and prosecuted by the Civil Rights Division’s criminal section working alongside local U.S. Attorney’s offices. The color-of-law case against Derek Chauvin for George Floyd’s murder followed exactly this pattern, with the Civil Rights Division’s criminal section working jointly with several local assistant U.S. attorneys. However, that Minneapolis office has itself been troubled—one of the prosecutors involved in the Chauvin case quit this year, shortly after Justice Department leadership prevented prosecutors and FBI agents from pursuing a civil rights investigation into Renee Good’s shooting death by the ICE agent. The two local prosecutors now assigned to the Pretti case are described by sources as relatively junior—though serious and committed—and they handle a variety of cases ranging from guns and drugs to child exploitation. Most importantly, sources indicate these local prosecutors are unlikely to be the ones making the ultimate decisions about the case.
A Division in Decline and Leadership Questions
The staffing challenges go beyond just this one case. The Civil Rights Division’s criminal section has been hollowed out, now employing approximately 10 prosecutors, down from about 30 in recent years due to early retirements, transfers, and departures for other positions. While a Justice Department spokesperson claims there are about 21 career attorneys total, several sources clarify that some serve as attorney-advisers who don’t directly prosecute criminal cases—a significant distinction when it comes to actual investigative capacity. The division’s new chief, Katie Neff, has never worked as a federal prosecutor; her career has included stints at several local district attorneys’ offices in California and more recently with the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, which notably does not handle criminal prosecutions. Before becoming a lawyer, she worked as a journalist. She recently assumed the role after the section’s longtime career chief accepted an early retirement package in mid-February. Other division leaders, including Keenan and Orlando Sonza, were recently assigned to prosecute journalist Don Lemon and 38 others for their participation in an anti-ICE protest at a church in the Twin Cities in January—a case that critics argue represents a prioritization of political prosecutions over accountability for law enforcement misconduct.
Voices of Concern and the Path Forward
Former Justice Department prosecutors and legal experts have not minced words about their concerns. Sam Trepel, a former prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division criminal section now serving as senior counsel and rule of law director at the States United Democracy Center, emphasized that “our democracy was built on the rule of law, and an important element of that is having a credible, independent investigation into government conduct.” She pointed out the obvious: “The Civil Rights Division has experienced career prosecutors who are the experts in investigating use of force cases, including shootings by federal agents. By bypassing them and assigning an employment discrimination attorney, it just shows that this administration isn’t serious about conducting a fair and comprehensive investigation.” Stacey Young, a former division attorney who founded the nonprofit advocacy group Justice Connection, was equally blunt: “The Civil Rights Division still has career attorneys with a deep background in these investigations. Ignoring them and designating attorneys with little if any relevant expertise to run one of the department’s highest-profile civil rights investigations shows DOJ leadership has no intention of pursuing any real accountability.” A senior Justice Department official, when asked about the probe last week, notably declined to characterize it as a deprivation of rights under color of law case—the standard charge brought by the Civil Rights Division in excessive force cases—instead describing it as having investigators “look under the hood” to see what happened. This characterization has only deepened concerns that the investigation may not be treated with the seriousness and rigor that the circumstances demand, potentially undermining public trust in the Justice Department’s commitment to holding federal agents accountable when they use deadly force against American citizens.
