Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
POLITIFACT-State governments aren't barred from prosecuting federal agents
Stephen Millier is never went to law school and I wonder how JD Vance passed the bar exam. There is NO absolute immunity.
Link to tweet
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/oct/29/stephen-miller/ICE-agent-immigration-raids-legal-immunity/
State governments aren’t barred from prosecuting federal agents
State governments also can prosecute immigration agents if they break state law. However, there is a limitation known as supremacy clause immunity which comes from the U.S. Constitution’s clause that says federal law supersedes conflicting state laws.
Protections against state prosecution for federal agents date back to an 1890 Supreme Court decision. David Neagle, a deputy U.S. marshal assigned to protect a Supreme Court justice, shot and killed a man who assaulted the justice. California arrested Neagle and charged him with murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the state couldn’t prosecute Neagle because he was carrying out official duties.
Generally, federal agents are protected from state prosecution if their actions were authorized by federal law, and if the actions were "necessary and proper" for agents to fulfill their duties.....
Contrary to Miller’s statement, Vladeck wrote, it’s not a felony "for local or state authorities to arrest someone who they have probable cause to believe committed a state crime."
If a state brought charges against federal immigration agents, the court would have to determine whether an officer reasonably would have thought the actions were necessary to carry out federal duties.
"That’s a generous standard, to be sure," Vladeck wrote. "But it is by no means a get-out-of-prosecution-free card."
Our ruling
,......States can’t prosecute agents for breaking state law if the agents were acting under the reasonable confines of their official duties. But those restrictions aren’t absolute.
The statement contains an element of truth; federal immigration agents have some immunity from state prosecution. But the protections aren’t as sweeping as Miller made them sound, giving a different impression. Federal agents can and have been prosecuted by states.
We rate Miller’s statement Mostly False.
State governments also can prosecute immigration agents if they break state law. However, there is a limitation known as supremacy clause immunity which comes from the U.S. Constitution’s clause that says federal law supersedes conflicting state laws.
Protections against state prosecution for federal agents date back to an 1890 Supreme Court decision. David Neagle, a deputy U.S. marshal assigned to protect a Supreme Court justice, shot and killed a man who assaulted the justice. California arrested Neagle and charged him with murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the state couldn’t prosecute Neagle because he was carrying out official duties.
Generally, federal agents are protected from state prosecution if their actions were authorized by federal law, and if the actions were "necessary and proper" for agents to fulfill their duties.....
Contrary to Miller’s statement, Vladeck wrote, it’s not a felony "for local or state authorities to arrest someone who they have probable cause to believe committed a state crime."
If a state brought charges against federal immigration agents, the court would have to determine whether an officer reasonably would have thought the actions were necessary to carry out federal duties.
"That’s a generous standard, to be sure," Vladeck wrote. "But it is by no means a get-out-of-prosecution-free card."
Our ruling
,......States can’t prosecute agents for breaking state law if the agents were acting under the reasonable confines of their official duties. But those restrictions aren’t absolute.
The statement contains an element of truth; federal immigration agents have some immunity from state prosecution. But the protections aren’t as sweeping as Miller made them sound, giving a different impression. Federal agents can and have been prosecuted by states.
We rate Miller’s statement Mostly False.