The Twin Cities, and far of the nation, are nonetheless reeling from ICE agent Jonathan Ross capturing and killing Renee Good final week. The native resistance to the federal immigration forces deployed in and round Minneapolis has grown, and the Trump administration’s rhetoric towards Good and the protesters round Minneapolis has heated up. On Thursday, Trump threatened to invoke the Revolt Act and ship the US navy to the cities to crush the activists.
In the meantime, a query nonetheless hangs over the disaster: Will Ross face any authorized accountability for killing Good? Vice President JD Vance insists that Ross has “absolute immunity” for his actions, and the Justice Division is declining to research him. However others marvel if the state of Minnesota can prosecute Ross for the killing. The quick reply, for the time being, is possibly.
Right now, Defined cohost Noel King spoke with Vox’s senior authorized correspondent Ian Millhiser concerning the state of the competing federal and state investigations into Good’s dying, what the Supreme Court docket has mentioned about this challenge, and whether or not the Trump administration’s immunity claims about ICE officers have any advantage.
There’s way more within the full podcast. So take heed to Right now, Defined wherever you get your podcasts, together with Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
A girl in Minnesota is lifeless and there may be video of her killing by the hands of an ICE agent. The primary response from many considering Individuals was: There shall be a authorized method of coping with what occurred right here. There shall be accountability. Why is that our response?
The entire level of authorized accountability is to discourage individuals from doing dangerous issues. This isn’t the one cause I don’t break into my neighbor’s dwelling, however one cause I don’t break into my neighbor’s house is I do know that if I do, I shall be arrested.
- The federal authorities has proven little curiosity in prosecuting the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good, however Minnesota might attempt to prosecute him on state expenses.
- The Justice Division will not be cooperating or sharing data with Minnesota state investigators, which can make a state prosecution tougher.
- The Supreme Court docket has a really outdated precedent stating that federal legislation enforcement officers are immune from prosecution for acts taken whereas finishing up their duties, however in June 2025, the Court docket issued one other ruling saying that that immunity will not be absolute if the actions in query weren’t “crucial and correct” for his or her obligations.
This can be a query that the Supreme Court docket has been wrestling with for fairly a while, is when do we wish legislation enforcement officers to really feel like in the event that they behave badly, they are going to concern authorized penalties?
All proper, let’s discuss concerning the investigation in Minneapolis at this level. What do we all know?
We all know it’s fairly splintered. Usually the best way one thing like this is able to work is that federal legislation enforcement officers would work with the state police with a view to decide what occurred and if any prison expenses have to be introduced. So there’s a number of the explanation why the federal investigation [into the Good shooting] is wanting prefer it’s not critical. One is that they seem to have kicked the state police out of the investigation. The state is now not allowed to cooperate with the federal authorities. The federal authorities apparently is not sharing data with state police. And that’s an enormous pink flag.
On prime of that, the deputy legal professional normal, Todd Blanche, mentioned that he doesn’t suppose a civil rights investigation into the capturing itself is warranted. And on prime of that, six prosecutors within the US Lawyer’s Workplace in Minnesota resigned in protest, as a result of apparently the US legal professional wished the investigation to give attention to Becca Good, the spouse of the sufferer.
So, , it actually seems like this federal investigation isn’t just a sham, however doubtlessly one thing worse, as a result of they could be seeking to harass the widow right here. And that leaves open the query of whether or not the state authorities goes to have the ability to conduct an intensive investigation with out federal cooperation.
Minnesota itself appears to be indicating that it desires to conduct an investigation. They’ve requested that individuals “who have data or who’ve video or images of the occasion to submit that data.”
However it’s unclear simply how efficient the state’s investigation goes to be if the feds is not going to cooperate.
Let’s discuss what we’re listening to from the federal authorities. Vice President JD Vance, who has a legislation diploma from Yale, mentioned an astonishing quantity earlier than an investigation had even begun right here:
“I can imagine that her dying is a tragedy whereas additionally recognizing that it’s a tragedy of her personal making and a tragedy of the far left who has marshaled a whole motion, a lunatic fringe, towards our legislation enforcement officers,” he mentioned. And he has been very clear that he thinks the ICE agent concerned, Jonathan Ross, has “absolute immunity.”
What does the vp imply?
I imply, he wants to return to legislation college if he thinks that that’s the suitable time period. “Absolute immunity” is a time period that’s utilized in civil lawsuits, not in prison investigation — like when you might have a non-public social gathering suing one other individual, usually for cash. The Supreme Court docket has mentioned that three lessons of people have absolute immunity from these fits. None of them are legislation enforcement. These three lessons of people are the sitting president, judges, and prosecutors. Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who shot Renee Good, is neither the president of america, a choose, nor a prosecutor. So absolute immunity doesn’t apply to him.
There are some doctrines that apply to prison investigations. Most likely crucial one is a doctrine that emerges from a case known as In re Neagle. It was an 1890 case, so that is actually outdated, and it entails a federal legislation enforcement officer who shot a person in the midst of responsibility. The state of California wished to prosecute him. And Neagle set the rule that in most however not all instances, when a federal legislation enforcement officer is performing inside the scope of their duties, the state can’t prosecute them.
Okay, so regardless that the vp was not utilizing the suitable phrases, he might have been saying the suitable factor, as a result of this man is a federal officer. This precedent that’s been round since 1890 in all probability protects him, proper? Until someone on the federal finish decides to convey prison expenses?
Effectively, it’s unclear, as a result of about six months in the past, final June, the Supreme Court docket handed down one other case known as Martin v. United States. They weakened Neagle considerably in that call.
What I get out of Martin is that protections for federal legislation enforcement officers towards state prosecutions should not absolute. So they don’t seem to be what JD Vance mentioned they’re, regardless that there may be nonetheless some safety there.
Is there an opportunity in your thoughts that this case leads to some vogue earlier than the Supreme Court docket?
I feel that if the state of Minnesota prosecutes — and that’s an enormous if right here, as a result of to begin with, we don’t know in the event that they’re going to have the ability to conduct an intensive investigation given the federal sabotage. And second of all, we don’t know what the outcomes of that investigation could be. Possibly they decide that they’ll’t convey a profitable prosecution right here. Even when Jonathan Ross is responsible, the prosecutors nonetheless need to show their case past an affordable doubt. And they also might decide that they only don’t have sufficient proof that it’s price going to a jury.
But when they convey a prosecution, I feel that the state of the legislation governing when a state can convey a prosecution towards a federal officer could be very unclear proper now. And particularly given how high-profile this case is, that is the form of case that I might simply see winding up in entrance of the Supreme Court docket.
If Minnesota state prosecutors are in a position to convey expenses towards this man, what does that imply for the best way that ICE behaves within the streets subsequent month, six months from now, a yr from now?
I feel it relies upon quite a bit on what the courts say. What the Supreme Court docket mentioned lately in Martin, although, is that, properly, we solely need Neagle to use after we know that this officer is definitely finishing up federal duties. [The opinion says that] “federal officers might generally defeat state prosecutions towards them by demonstrating that their actions, although prison below state legislation, had been ‘crucial and correct’ within the discharge of their federal obligations.”
If I used to be a Minnesota state prosecutor, I might argue that capturing somebody after they had their wheels turned towards you and so they weren’t a risk to you will not be “crucial and correct” to the discharge of federal legislation enforcement, and subsequently prosecution ought to be allowed. And if I had been Jonathan Ross’s legal professional, I might argue the alternative.
That’s actually imprecise language that the Supreme Court docket handed down in Martin. So I don’t know what the right reply is to the query of whether or not or not Ross might be prosecuted at state courtroom, as a result of the one factor I’ve started working with is that this terribly imprecise line from the Supreme Court docket about issues which might be “crucial and correct” to federal obligations.
As someone who’s a lawyer and who has lined the legislation for a very long time, what do you make of the truth that quite a lot of Individuals are feeling proper now that the legislation doesn’t work, {that a} lady is lifeless, that ICE is dragging individuals off the streets, in some instances violently, and the legislation doesn’t appear to use to these individuals?
They’re right that there’s actually selective legislation enforcement within the Trump administration. Trump had a really totally different response to the January 6 offenders, a few of which endangered federal legislation enforcement officers a complete lot extra than Renee Good did.
There’s no query right here that the Justice Division is behaving in a political method, and it’s a significant issue. For a lot of, a few years, there have been very robust norms saying that regardless that the Justice Division is a part of a presidential administration, prosecutorial choices ought to be made by civil servants for impartial authorized causes and never for political causes. And that norm has simply fully damaged down below this president.
