Two people have been shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis since the beginning of this month, following the launch of an immigration-enforcement operation. The most recent death, that of Alex Jeffrey Pretti on Saturday, occurred after the shooting of Renee Good, who was killed by an ICE agent while in her car. Following Good’s death, federal officials indicated a lack of interest in an impartial investigation, with Vice-President J.D. Vance stating federal officials have “absolute immunity” in performing their duties.
Legal Roadblocks and State Action
The deaths have prompted calls for investigation, even from some Republican officeholders. State officials have accused the federal government of hindering access to the scene of Pretti’s shooting. Members of the Trump Administration have labeled Pretti a “domestic terrorist” and disputed accounts of the shooting, despite video evidence. A federal judge on Saturday night ordered the government to preserve evidence following a lawsuit filed by Minnesota authorities.
The question of whether and how Minnesota officials can investigate and prosecute federal agents is complex. According to Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, there are two primary hurdles: legal precedent and potential obstruction from the Trump Administration. Vladeck explained that the law itself presents challenges, as well as the practical difficulties of pursuing a case when the federal government may actively impede the process.
Supremacy-Clause Immunity
The primary legal obstacle is a doctrine known as “supremacy-clause immunity,” stemming from an 1890 Supreme Court decision. This doctrine suggests federal officers are shielded from state law consequences when acting within their legitimate federal duties. This is similar to the principle of preemption, where federal law overrides state law. An example cited was the enforcement of desegregation orders in the 1950s, where state officials could not interfere with federal officers carrying out court orders.
While the Supreme Court has not mandated congressional authorization for states to prosecute federal officials, case law has focused on defining the boundary between actions taken in good faith and those that exceed the scope of legitimate federal duty. A 2006 ruling by the federal appeals court in Denver, authored by Judge Michael McConnell, suggested prosecution may be possible if an officer’s actions were not “necessary and reasonable” in carrying out their duties. However, this ruling applies specifically to the Tenth Circuit, and Minnesota falls within the Eighth Circuit.
Potential Next Steps
If Minnesota prosecutors were to adopt the “necessary and reasonable” standard outlined by Judge McConnell, a legal challenge could ensue. It is possible the question of whether federal officials acted within the bounds of their authority could be decided in court. The Trump Administration could attempt to obstruct any state-level investigation, potentially complicating the process. The Supreme Court could ultimately be asked to weigh in on the balance between federal executive power and states’ rights, though such a case is not guaranteed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is “supremacy-clause immunity”?
It is a legal doctrine, originating in an 1890 Supreme Court decision, that suggests federal officers are immune from state law consequences when performing their legitimate federal duties.
Has a state ever successfully prosecuted a federal officer?
There are very few examples of successful state prosecutions of federal officers in American history, and the source indicates that many cases have been dropped before reaching a verdict.
What standard did Judge McConnell propose for prosecuting federal officers?
Judge McConnell suggested that federal officers could be prosecuted if their actions were not “necessary and reasonable” in carrying out their federal duties.
Given the complex legal landscape and potential for obstruction, what role should independent investigations play in ensuring accountability in cases involving federal agents?
