Can Renee Good’s ICE shooter be prosecuted?

[ad_1] 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 Insurrection Act and ship the US army 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 investigate him. However others marvel if the state of Minnesota can prosecute Ross for the killing. The brief reply, in the intervening time, is possibly.

As we speak, 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 Courtroom has stated about this subject, and whether or not the Trump administration’s immunity claims about ICE officers have any benefit.

There’s way more within the full podcast. So take heed to As we speak, Defined wherever you get your podcasts, together with Apple Podcasts , Pandora , and Spotify .

A lady in Minnesota is lifeless and there's video of her killing by the hands of an ICE agent . The primary response from many considering People was: There shall be a authorized means 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 folks 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 prices. The Justice Division just isn't cooperating or sharing info with Minnesota state investigators, which can make a state prosecution tougher. The Supreme Courtroom has a really outdated precedent stating that federal regulation enforcement officers are immune from prosecution for acts taken whereas finishing up their duties, however in June 2025, the Courtroom issued one other ruling saying that that immunity just isn't absolute if the actions in query weren't “essential and correct” for his or her duties. It is a query that the Supreme Courtroom has been wrestling with for fairly a while, is when do we wish regulation enforcement officers to really feel like in the event that they behave badly, they may 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 could work is that federal law enforcement officers would work with the state police with a purpose to decide what occurred and if any legal prices must be introduced. So there’s a number of explanation why the federal investigation [into the Good shooting] is wanting prefer it’s not serious . 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 information with state police . And that’s a giant purple flag.

On prime of that, the deputy legal professional normal, Todd Blanche, stated that he doesn’t think a civil rights investigation into the shooting 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, you recognize, it actually seems like this federal investigation isn't just a sham, however probably one thing worse, as a result of they could be trying 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 a radical investigation with out federal cooperation.

Minnesota itself appears to be indicating that it wants to conduct an investigation . They've requested that folks “who have information or who have video or photos of the occasion to submit that info.”

However it’s unclear simply how efficient the state’s investigation goes to be if the feds is not going to cooperate.

Let’s speak about what we're listening to from the federal authorities. Vice President JD Vance, who has a regulation diploma from Yale , stated an astonishing quantity earlier than an investigation had even begun right here :

“ I can believe 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 complete motion, a lunatic fringe, towards our regulation enforcement officers,” he stated. 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 regulation faculty if he thinks that that’s the suitable time period. “Absolute immunity” is a term that is used in civil lawsuits , not in legal investigation — like when you could have a personal get together suing one other individual, sometimes for cash. The Supreme Courtroom has stated that three courses of people have absolute immunity from these fits. None of them are regulation enforcement. These three courses of people are the sitting president, judges, and prosecutors . Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who shot Renee Good, is neither the president of the US, a decide, nor a prosecutor. So absolute immunity doesn't apply to him.

There are some doctrines that apply to legal investigations. In all probability crucial one is a doctrine that emerges from a case referred to as In re Neagle . It was an 1890 case, so that is actually outdated, and it includes a federal regulation enforcement officer who shot a person in the midst of obligation. The state of California wished to prosecute him. And Neagle set the rule that in most however not all circumstances, when a federal regulation enforcement officer is performing throughout the scope of their duties, the state can not prosecute them.

Okay, so despite the fact that the vp was not utilizing the appropriate phrases, he might have been saying the appropriate 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? Except anyone on the federal finish decides to carry legal prices?

Effectively, it’s unclear, as a result of about six months in the past, final June, the Supreme Courtroom handed down one other case referred to as Martin v. United States . They weakened Neagle considerably in that call.

What I get out of Martin is that protections for federal regulation enforcement officers towards state prosecutions are usually not absolute. So they aren't what JD Vance stated they're, despite the fact that there's nonetheless some safety there.

Is there an opportunity in your thoughts that this case results in some style earlier than the Supreme Courtroom?

I believe that if the state of Minnesota prosecutes — and that’s a giant 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 a radical investigation given the federal sabotage. And second of all, we don’t know what the outcomes of that investigation can be. Possibly they decide that they will’t carry a profitable prosecution right here. Even when Jonathan Ross is responsible, the prosecutors nonetheless must show their case past an affordable doubt. And they also might decide that they simply don’t have sufficient proof that it’s price going to a jury.

But when they carry a prosecution, I believe that the state of the regulation governing when a state can bring a prosecution against a federal officer could be very unclear proper now. And particularly given how high-profile this case is, that is the kind of case that I might simply see winding up in entrance of the Supreme Courtroom.

If Minnesota state prosecutors are capable of carry prices towards this man, what does that imply for the best way that ICE behaves within the streets subsequent month, six months from now, a 12 months from now?

I believe it relies upon so much on what the courts say. What the Supreme Courtroom stated just lately in Martin , although, is that, nicely, 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 typically defeat state prosecutions towards them by demonstrating that their actions, although legal below state regulation, had been ‘ necessary and proper ’ within the discharge of their federal duties.”

If I used to be a Minnesota state prosecutor, I might argue that capturing somebody once they had their wheels turned towards you and so they weren’t a menace to you just isn't “essential and correct” to the discharge of federal regulation enforcement, and subsequently prosecution needs to be allowed. And if I had been Jonathan Ross’s legal professional, I might argue the alternative.

That’s actually obscure language that the Supreme Courtroom handed down in Martin . So I don’t know what the proper reply is to the query of whether or not or not Ross may be prosecuted at state court docket, as a result of the one factor I’ve set to work with is that this terribly obscure line from the Supreme Courtroom about issues which are “essential and correct” to federal duties.

As anyone who's a lawyer and who has coated the regulation for a very long time, what do you make of the truth that a number of People are feeling proper now that the regulation doesn't work, {that a} girl is lifeless, that ICE is dragging folks off the streets, in some cases violently , and the regulation doesn't appear to use to these folks?

They're appropriate that there's actually selective regulation enforcement within the Trump administration. Trump had a very different reaction to the January 6 offenders , a few of which endangered federal regulation enforcement officers a whole lot more than Renee Good did.

There’s no query right here that the Justice Division is behaving in a political method, and it’s a major problem. For a lot of, a few years, there have been very sturdy norms saying that despite the fact that the Justice Division is a part of a presidential administration, prosecutorial choices needs to be made by civil servants for impartial authorized causes and never for political causes. And that norm has simply utterly damaged down below this president.