...
By Billal Rahman
Immigration Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Questions about whether federal agents can face prosecution for deadly use of force have surged after two separate fatal shootings by immigration enforcers in Minneapolis.
In early January, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renée Good during an encounter in Minneapolis. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the officer fired in what it described as self-defense after Good “attempted to run him over.”
Weeks later, another federal immigration agent shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti in a separate enforcement action. DHS described both Pretti and Good as "domestic terrorists". In both cases, the video footage appears to contradict the government's account.
Read More on News
The shootings have come amid increased tensions in Minneapolis over federal immigration activity, leading to nationwide protests and a flurry of backlash from local officials and Democrats across the country.
...
Some Republican figures, including Vice President JD Vance, have suggested that federal agents, including ICE officers, have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for use-of-force incidents. Legal experts say the claim is inaccurate.
"The agents could face murder charges in a state court," Pace University Law Professor Bennett Gershman told Newsweek. "It appears with almost total certainty that in both cases the agents were not in any physical danger when they used lethal force. The agent who killed Good stood near the front passenger side of Good’s SUV. The car appeared not to strike him. He shot her in the face when she turned the car to the right and began to slowly drive away. Preeti was kneeling down and was unarmed when the agent shot him in the back.
"In my opinion, assuming the state of Minnesota can collect sufficient evidence to charge the agents with murder, the state would be able to prosecute them in the face of the federal stonewalling and cover-up," Gershman continued.
"The U.S. Constitution’s so-called Supremacy Clause makes the federal government supreme over state governments, and if there is a conflict, the federal government wins. Indeed, according to Vice President JD Vance, given federal supremacy, the agents have absolute immunity for his killings.
"But Vance’s assertion is flatly wrong. In fact, police officers charged with crimes or civil rights violations never enjoy absolute immunity. They typically receive a qualified immunity, assuming they acted reasonably."
Under both Minnesota law and federal standards, law enforcement use of deadly force is judged by what a "reasonable officer" would believe was necessary to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious harm, a high threshold rooted in state statute and constitutional case law.
Minnesota’s law permits deadly force only when an objectively reasonable officer would see it as necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Federal law and departmental policies governing ICE and other federal agents apply a similar “objective reasonableness” standard, allowing deadly force only when officers reasonably believe there is an immediate threat of death or serious injury.
"Assuming the state brings charges, the agents will likely make a motion to have the case removed to federal court. This is commonplace and not surprising. But once the case is before a federal judge, the preliminary issue the judge will need to decide is whether agents’ killing of Good and Pretti was a reasonable and proper exercise of law enforcement duties," Gershman said.
"The question is an objective one; it is not whether agents believed they needed to use lethal force to protect themselves, but in looking at the event objectively, whether it was reasonable for them to believe that they needed to use lethal force to protect themselves and whether there were alternative ways they could have used to handle the situation without using deadly force.
"If the judge decides for the agents, she would dismiss the case. If the judge decides against the agents and for the state, the trial would be held in a federal courtroom, presided by the federal judge, and prosecuted by lawyers from the state of Minnesota. Federal rules of evidence and procedure will be used. The agents will be defended by lawyers of their choice, which may include lawyers from the federal government."
Under U.S. law, a state like Minnesota can attempt to charge a federal officer with a crime such as homicide, but if the officer was acting within the scope of federal authority, the case would likely be moved to federal court, where a judge would decide whether the conduct fell within authorized duties or was objectively unreasonable or clearly unlawful, a determination that can effectively shield the officer from state charge.
Federal prosecutors also can bring criminal charges against law enforcement officers, including ICE agents, but such prosecutions are historically rare. To succeed, prosecutors generally must prove that an officer knowingly violated the law or acted with reckless disregard for constitutional limits.
The Department of Justice has not indicated any plans to bring federal charges in these Minneapolis cases, and the current administration has publicly defended the agents’ actions.
Civil suits against federal agents for damages face high legal hurdles. Officers are protected by qualified immunity, a doctrine limiting liability unless a clear constitutional violation can be shown. This standard has long insulated law enforcement from many civil claims.
As the investigations continue, legal experts say the central question will be whether prosecutors at the state or federal level can show that any agent’s actions fell outside the protection of official duties and constitutional standards.
"It is entirely possible, although not without some difficulty and fierce resistance by Trump and his cronies, that the state of Minnesota will eventually be able to charge the agents with murder, bring them to trial in a state courtroom, and convict them. And Trump could not pardon them for a state conviction," Gershman said.
"Minnesota will be able to amass solid evidence that in both cases the agents behaved unreasonably and without justification when they shot the victims to death. Witnesses who saw the events and took videos of the tragedies are coming forward with their accounts."
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines