[[link removed]]

ICE AGENTS CAN BE CHARGED WITH MURDER  
[[link removed]]


 

David Dayen
January 7, 2026
The American Prospect
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ As a killing in Minneapolis is documented the law clearly
stipulates federal agents do not have universal immunity. Federal
officers are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from
prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law _

A bullet hole and bloodstains can be seen in a crashed vehicle at the
scene of a shooting in Minneapolis this afternoon after federal agents
opened fire on a motorist., Credit: Ben Hovland/Minnesota Public Radio
// The American Prospect

 

On Wednesday afternoon, ICE agents carrying out an operation in south
Minneapolis were briefly obstructed by a car blocking traffic. ICE
agents approached the female driver, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good,
yelling, “Get out of the fucking car,” and one of them attempted
to open the driver’s-side door. After the driver backed up to turn
around and move, another agent drew his gun and unloaded three shots
into the car. The car barreled into a light pole about 100 feet down
the road, and the driver was quickly pronounced dead.

This is confirmed by eyewitness accounts
[[link removed]]
and videos [[link removed]] from
multiple angles. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while
confirming the broad details, claims
[[link removed]] that the ICE
agent acted in self-defense to avoid being run over by the vehicle.

These are the kinds of disputes that the courts are equipped to
handle. Because if an agent shot directly into a car and killed the
driver without some credible fear of personal harm, it would be called
murder. And federal agents can indeed be prosecuted for murder.

States can prosecute anyone for violations of state law, regardless of
their rank or authority. Murder is a felony in the state of Minnesota,
as it is in every other state. Within the last several years, we saw
Minnesota successfully prosecute a murder
[[link removed]],
committed by a law enforcement officer, that was documented on tape
and broadcast to the world.

The Supremacy Clause does give federal officials some protections from
state laws, but they “only appl[y] when federal officials are
reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties,”
according to a position paper
[[link removed]]
issued by the University of Wisconsin Law School. Shooting an unarmed
person who is in the process of fleeing a scene would be unlawful, and
while DHS would certainly contest that in court, that’s a wholly
proper venue for the debate.

The history of state prosecutions of federal officials goes back to
the War of 1812, when some New England states used state statutes to
prosecute federal customs officers who seized goods that were under a
trade embargo. Often, they are used to resist a federal law that
states don’t like, such as the Fugitive Slave Act.

But numerous states have indicted, charged, and arrested federal law
enforcement officers for conduct that exceeded their official duties.
In 1898, Virginia charged a federal tax collector posse
[[link removed]]
with shooting and killing horses and cattle during a shootout. The
federal posse claimed they were ambushed while attempting to collect
taxes.

More to the point, in _Findley v. Satterfield_
[[link removed]]
(1877), _Castle v. Lewis_
[[link removed]] (1918),
_Oregon v. Wood_
[[link removed]]
(1920), _Smith v. Gilliam_
[[link removed]]
(1922),  _Maryland v. Soper_
[[link removed]] (1926), and many
more, states alleged that federal officers committed murder or
attempted murder while engaged in law enforcement activity. Almost
always, the federal response was that they were performing federal
duties, that they acted in self-defense, or both. Often, these cases
were removed to federal court, but the state prosecutors maintained
the case. (Federal officers have the right to move cases to federal
court, but not the unlimited right; they have to assert some plausible
federal defense to the charges.)

Sometimes the courts accepted the federal officers’ arguments and
had state charges dropped. Sometimes they invoked the Supremacy Clause
and determined that these officers could not be prosecuted. But in
_Castle v. Lewis_
[[link removed]] and _Ex
parte Huston_
[[link removed]], both of
which involved federal officials shooting into a car believed to be
transporting liquor during Prohibition, the judge allowed the cases to
go forward, citing unreasonable use of force and a lack of connection
to the discharge of federal duties.

More recently, states have prosecuted officers, often successfully,
for a variety of misconduct, up to and including murder. One of the
more notorious ones came from Idaho in 1992, where state prosecutors
charged an FBI sniper with killing the unarmed wife of anti-government
activist Randall Weaver at his Ruby Ridge cabin. A federal appeals
court did allow the case to go forward, but a newly elected county
prosecutor dropped the charges.

Prosecutors in Santa Clara County, California, successfully prosecuted
[[link removed]] a postal worker
(a federal officer) who killed a bicyclist in 1989. Virginia
prosecuted a U.S. Park Police officer who shot a man to death in 2017,
but again after an election, charges were dropped
[[link removed]].
Oregon prosecuted a Drug Enforcement Administration officer who killed
a biker with his car while catching up with his colleagues; the Ninth
Circuit just affirmed a lower-court dismissal
[[link removed]]
of the case last month. 

Supreme Court: “Federal officers and employees are not, merely
because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state
courts for crimes against state law.”

The point is that states have the ability to enforce their laws
against federal officers or agents, in precisely the same
circumstances as in this potential case in Minneapolis. Sometimes they
win, sometimes they lose. But the law does not confer automatic
immunity to federal officers. “Federal officers and employees are
not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution
in state courts for crimes against state law,” the Supreme Court
wrote in _Colorado v. Symes_
[[link removed]] nearly 100
years ago.

It is entirely possible that this Court will look to different
precedents, like _In re Neagle _in 1890
[[link removed]], to throw out a
state murder case against an ICE agent. But if that threat prevents
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison or local prosecutors from
pursuing justice, then ICE has practical immunity for all intents and
purposes already. During this frenzied moment, declining to prosecute
state violations of law from immigration enforcement seems like it
will simply invite abuse after abuse.

Of course, President Trump would be almost certain to act to punish
Minnesota in some way if they dared to indict an ICE officer for
murder. But Trump is _already_ acting unilaterally to punish
Minnesota! That’s why these agents were out hassling Minneapolis
residents in the first place. Those acts of retaliation will play out
in court and be decided well before any new retaliation in the ICE
incident, and precedent indicates that the president will lose in
trying to single out individual state funding for unrelated reasons.
(I should add that state crimes cannot be expunged with a federal
pardon, as Trump is finding out
[[link removed]]
with Tina Peters in Colorado.)

The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, has asked ICE agents
[[link removed]] to leave
the city, but that’s unlikely to be followed. He has also said that
the “self-defense” claim by DHS is “bullshit
[[link removed]].” There is
a way to deal with that discrepancy, and it’s called criminal
prosecution. An indictment would signal to agents that their actions
are circumscribed by state law, including the law against murder.
Lame-duck Gov. Tim Walz has promised
[[link removed]] “a
full, fair, and expeditious investigation” of the incident. There is
ample precedent to go further.

_UPDATE: This story has been updated to better reflect the Oregon case
with the DEA agent._

_[DAVID DAYEN is the executive editor of The American Prospect. He is
the author of __Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power _
[[link removed]]_and __Chain of Title: How
Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street’s Great Foreclosure
Fraud_ [[link removed]]_. He hosts the
weekly live show The Weekly Roundup and co-hosts the podcast Organized
Money with Matt Stoller. He can be reached on Signal at ddayen.90.]_

_Read the original article at __Prospect.org_
[[link removed]]_. _

_Used with the permission. © __The American Prospect_
[[link removed]]_, __Prospect.org, 2025_
[[link removed]]_. All rights reserved.  _

_Support the American Prospect_ [[link removed]]_._

_Click here_ [[link removed]]_ to support the Prospect's
brand of independent impact journalism._ 

* Renee Nicole Good
[[link removed]]
* ICE
[[link removed]]
* DHS
[[link removed]]
* Minneapolis
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* Kristi Noem
[[link removed]]
* Minnesota
[[link removed]]
* universal immunity
[[link removed]]
* criminal justice
[[link removed]]
* Immigration
[[link removed]]
* Jacob Frey
[[link removed]]
* Law & Justice
[[link removed]]
* Supreme Court
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]