Can Minnesota prosecute the federal immigration officer who just killed a woman?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A federal officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, shortly after the Trump administration deployed thousands of immigration agents to the city. Although the full circumstances of the killing remain unclear, video of the shooting shows an officer opening fire on the woman as she drove away.

Realistically, there’s virtually no chance that President Donald Trump’s Justice Department will bring federal charges against the officer who killed this woman. Trump already claimed on Truth Social, his personal social media site, that the officer shot the woman in “self-defense.” (The officer could potentially be prosecuted after Trump leaves office.)

-snip-

Until fairly recently, the law was favorable to federal officials who allegedly violate state criminal laws while they carry out their official duties. The seminal case, known as In re Neagle (1890), held that a deputy US marshal who shot and killed a man could not be charged with murder in state court, because this federal officer did so while acting as a bodyguard for a US Supreme Court justice.

Last June, however, the Supreme Court handed down Martin v. United States (2025), which held that Neagle does not always protect federal officials who violate state law. The rule announced in Martin is vague, so it is unclear how it would apply to the shooting in Minneapolis. But the gist of the ruling is that a federal officer is only protected if they can demonstrate that “their actions, though criminal under state law, were ‘necessary and proper’ in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/minnesota-prosecute-federal-immigration-officer-222000065.html

[bluestarone]

1. Well, seems like this is a door TSF wants to open.

IF these bastards have full immunity we are ALL in very deep trouble.

[mjvpi]

2. Thank you for posting this.

[Bettie]

3. The Feds don't seem to want them to investigate

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minneapolis-ice-shooting-01-08-26

Relevant bit in the piece:

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said it was forced to withdraw from investigating the shooting after the FBI took control of the case. Gov. Tim Walz urged that “Minnesota must be part of this investigation.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/08/ice-shooting-renee-nicole-good-fbi-evidence.html

A Minnesota law enforcement agency said Thursday that the FBI is blocking the agency from accessing evidence related to the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on a residential street in Minneapolis.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said that the FBI’s stance, which came at the behest of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, was a reversal of an initial agreement that the BCA would conduct a joint investigation of Good’s killing with the FBI.

BCA Superintendent Drew Evans also said the agency has “reluctantly withdrawn” from the investigation because of the lack of cooperation from federal officials.

“It feels very, very difficult that we will get a fair outcome, and I say that only because people in positions of power have already passed judgment from the president to the vice President to Kristy Noem, have stood and told you things that are verifiably false, verifiably inaccurate,” Walz said at a press conference.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Prof. Vladeck-The One First "Long Read": The Limits of Supremacy Clause Immunity

There is NO absolute immunity.

Today's "One First" explains why Stephen Miller is wrong that ICE officers have "federal immunity" from prosecution for all actions they take in their official duties, and that anyone attempting to prosecute them is committing a felony.

Supremacy Clause immunity is a thing, but it's *not* absolute:

— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-10-27T11:34:07.822Z

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/186-when-can-states-prosecute-federal

The doctrine that is today known as “Supremacy Clause immunity” has its origins in an 1890 Supreme Court decision I’ve written about before—In re Neagle, which arose out of the attempted assassination of Justice Stephen Field. In Neagle, the Supreme Court held that California could not prosecute David Neagle (who had been deputized as a federal marshal to protect Field) for shooting and killing Field’s would-be assassin, even though, unbeknownst to Neagle, the victim was unarmed when he was killed. As the Court explained:

If the prisoner is held in the state court to answer for an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States, which it was his duty to do as [a federal officer] of the United States, and if in doing that act he did no more that what was necessary and proper for him to do, he cannot be guilty of a crime under the law[s] of the [state]. When these things are shown, it is established that he is innocent of any crime against the laws of the state, or of any other authority whatever. There is no occasion for any further trial in the state court, or in any court.

.......But what is clear is that Miller is wrong. Even at its most robust, Supremacy Clause immunity would not preclude a local or state prosecution of ICE officers for all scope-of-employment conduct. The question would turn, at least under Judge McConnell’s approach, on whether the officer “had an objectively reasonable and well-founded basis to believe that his actions were necessary to fulfill his duties.” That analysis may well come out in the officer’s favor in the mine run of cases. But it wouldn’t (and, historically, hasn’t) in all of them.1

To be sure, I still believe that the specter of criminal prosecutions, even by local or state officials, is a woefully inadequate deterrent for misconduct by federal law enforcement officers. Among lots of other things, there is plenty of law enforcement conduct that would constitute a violation of the Constitution but not of any state criminal statutes. Criminal prosecutions are for a subset of unlawful federal law enforcement activity—albeit the most important subset.

Still, two things can be true at once: There ought to be even more pathways for holding federal officers who violate our rights accountable; and local and state criminal prosecutions, in at least some cases, are not remotely foreclosed—so that state officers who seek to pursue such cases in good faith are not committing any crimes under federal law. There may be political reasons why local or state prosecutors will be wary of bringing such cases. But—and I know this is a shock—the relevant law is far more permissive when it comes to the ability to hold federal officers accountable than Stephen Miller would have you believe.

The ICE agent can and will tried in state court

[hamsterjill]

5. Can Rene Good's family sue ICE (or the DOJ) for wrongful death?

At a sterile, unfeeling minimum, her young son has lost the monetary support of a parent for the rest of his life.

Aren't there any hungry attorneys out there who would take this on?

[RedWhiteBlueIsRacist]

6. This is clearly a case of Good verses evil. If she doesn't get justice, then this country has no purpose.

Maybe Canada and Mexico can fight over the rotted carcass that was once the United States.

[Kid Berwyn]

7. Thanks. This DUer says, "I don't think so."

... But the gist of the ruling is that a federal officer is only protected if they can demonstrate that “their actions, though criminal under state law, were ‘necessary and proper’ in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.”

ICE had zero business with Ms. Good.

[MichMan]

8. RICO prosecutions against all of ICE

[Lovie777]

9. Yes..................