By now, particularly in case you dwell in the USA, you’ve seen or not less than heard of the footage capturing the violent killing of Renee Good. I’ve watched lots of the out there angles, together with the clip that was “leaked” from the ICE agent’s personal cellphone. I can’t underscore sufficient simply how brutal and disturbing it’s to look at. Maybe most horrific was the sound of Renee Good’s spouse screaming within the background, whereas she held their canine (who was additionally within the automobile). It might have simply been a scene out of a horror film.
Solely it wasn’t. It was actual. It was horrible.
It’s America.
As you realize, whereas I take into account myself to be a cookbook writer and recipe developer, first, I’m nonetheless an legal professional (I actually simply re-upped my registration for 2026 just a few moments in the past, which suggests I’ve been a working towards lawyer for a whopping 22 years). In consequence, once I see issues like this, I discard the apron for my lawyer-hat. I understand, now, that doing so is, partly, like reaching for my “consolation blanket” (I did even have one once I was a baby). When the world begins to feel and appear lawless, it’s soothing to establish and even recite the legal guidelines designed to maintain anarchy at bay.
If you happen to’re something like me, you’re most likely trying to find solutions, so I’m scripting this publish to deal with questions you might need relating to the assorted “legalities,” with some mild commentary/observations sprinkled in. I’ve been informed I’m fairly good at breaking down doubtlessly sophisticated authorized points so they’re readily comprehensible to non-lawyers. That’s what I’m aiming to do right here–aid you perceive what the regulation is, whether or not it’s being enforced, and what will be accomplished about any of this.
Can the ICE agent who killed Renee Good be prosecuted?
Sure.
There are a number of examples of ICE brokers being criminally prosecuted. For instance, simply final yr, a 1768345345 former ICE officer was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to 12 years in jail for utilizing his place to violate the civil rights of girls. Additionally final yr, a former DHS officer was sentenced to 70 months in jail for utilizing his badge to launder illicit drug proceeds. One other instance entails a former ICE agent who was arrested for home violence. He’s now going through each federal and state expenses.
However I believed the VP of the USA mentioned the ICE agent who killed Renee Good has “absolute immunity”?
JD Vance acknowledged in his press convention that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good was “protected by absolute immunity.” That is categorically false. As evidenced by the three instances I listed above–all of which occurred up to now yr alone–there isn’t any such factor as “absolute immunity” for ICE brokers, together with the one who killed Renee Good.
Why would JD Vance say one thing that’s not true?
JD Vance went to Yale Regulation College–one of many BEST regulation faculties within the nation. He is aware of past a shadow of a doubt that what he acknowledged is FALSE. Each lawyer in the USA is aware of that what JD Vance mentioned is as unsuitable as asserting “The First Modification protects your proper to boost pigs in your condo.” JD Vance is aware of that we legal professionals know this. However, he’s relying on all of the non-lawyers watching his press convention to not know this. He makes use of fancy phrases like “absolute immunity” to Jedi-mind-trick laypeople into believing the federal government can’t do something about what all of us noticed. Don’t be tricked.
However certainly there should be some immunity for ICE brokers?
Sure. There are numerous immunities that may apply to authorities staff, together with ICE brokers. The one at subject within the killing of Renee Good is sometimes called Supremacy Clause “immunity.” Particularly, the US Supremacy Clause within the Structure, itself, supplies, fairly straightforwardly, that the US Structure trumps any conflicting state legal guidelines and is the “supreme regulation of the land.”
How does that translate into immunity for ICE brokers? Courts have interpreted the Supremacy Clause to “shield[] federal officers and brokers beneath some circumstances from being charged with state-law crimes for conduct undertaken within the efficiency of their federal duties.” (See Mannheimer, “Unpacking Supremacy Clause Immunity.“) Observe the “some circumstances,” once more underscoring the shortage of any “absolute immunity.”
Up to now, it’s been fairly simple to observe, proper?
Okay, so what are these “circumstances”?
Okay, properly, that is the place it will get lawyer-y and laborious. ANYTIME a federal officer or agent will get criminally charged and even sued, they are going to assert immunity. Then, the court docket must decide whether or not immunity ought to apply (once more, if “absolute immunity” existed, courts wouldn’t have to do that…), earlier than the matter proceeds to trial. What is going to the court docket take a look at to make that dedication?
Typically talking, the court docket will attempt to reply two questions:
- Was the federal officer engaged in performing their federal duties?
- Did the officer actually and fairly imagine that his conduct was mandatory and acceptable to hold out these duties?
If the reply to each these questions is “sure,” then immunity will apply and the prison continuing will probably be dismissed.
What does it imply that the “federal officer was engaged in performing their federal duties”?
I (and lots of others) are inclined to view this as a reasonably technical query: was the agent on the job whereas doing the factor that could be in opposition to the regulation? Clearly, homicide and cash laundering isn’t in anybody’s job description, so doing one thing unlawful isn’t, by itself, dispositive (or presumably even related). The query on this first inquiry is NOT whether or not he was doing his job correctly and even legally, however whether or not he was beneath the colour of employment on the time. Within the civil context, for instance, you’ll be able to solely sue an employer for the worker’s wrongful conduct if that worker was “on the job” on the time that conduct occurred. I believe this can be a helpful analogy for this primary query.
At backside, this primary query is a gatekeeper. It doubtlessly cuts off the prolonged immunity evaluation earlier than it will get to the a lot trickier second query (which is actually two questions buried in a single–one thing legal professionals like to do). How does it try this? Let’s take the instance above of the ICE officer who was arrested for home violence. The Supremacy Clause is not going to shield an ICE officer who abuses his girlfriend whereas off-duty. Due to this fact, courts can reply simply that first query and finish the evaluation there: nope, he wasn’t on the job on the time the grievance of conduct occurred, so I don’t must waste my time even asking whether or not his conduct was mandatory and correct to try this job. Immunity doesn’t apply. Case proceeds to trial.
Okay. Let’s assume the ICE agent who killed Renee Good was “on the job.” He claims he was afraid for his life. Doesn’t that imply he “actually believed” it was essential to shoot her to do his job?
Not essentially. He might clearly be mendacity about his subjective perception. I imply… wouldn’t you? Hopefully, you’re not the kind of one who would shoot an individual 3 instances within the face, however put your self in his footwear: wouldn’t you lie like your life relied on it on this scenario? I believe we are able to all safely assume that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good has each incentive to lie about his subjective perception. However, there’s now fairly a little bit of proof that he did not “actually imagine” his life was endangered.
For one, he used his telephone to movie the entire thing. At one level, he even switched the hand that was holding his telephone, so he might actually seize the capturing. Furthermore, as a substitute of crying, respiratory laborious, or taking a second to get better from the purportedly “life threatening” encounter, the ICE agent walks away with out a lot as batting a watch, muttering the phrases “fuckin’ bitch” beneath his breath. Neither of these items appears like one thing an individual who was afraid for his life would do.
It does, nevertheless, observe as one thing a person who may be very indignant {that a} lady challenged his authority would possibly do.
Let’s assume he’s telling the reality, although. Then what? Does immunity apply?
Not so quick.
Bear in mind once I mentioned that query #2 is definitely two questions disguised as one? Let’s check out query #2 once more:
“Did the officer actually and moderately imagine that his conduct was mandatory and acceptable to hold out these duties?”
Query #2 doesn’t finish with whether or not the officer had a subjective perception that what he did was “mandatory and acceptable.” The regulation is many issues, however it isn’t gullible. It is aware of that ICE brokers will lie, so it requires each a subjective and goal perception that the conduct was mandatory and acceptable. In different phrases, Query #2 will be divided into the next two elements:
- Did the officer actually imagine what he did was mandatory and correct? AND
- Was that [honest] perception cheap beneath the circumstances?
In different phrases, even when everybody believes the ICE agent when he says he felt his life was threatened, the court docket nonetheless wants to judge whether or not a cheap officer in comparable circumstances would have shot a lady driving away from him at what might be not more than 5 miles an hour 3 times within the face at level clean vary whereas filming himself along with his personal cellphone along with his free hand.
How can the prosecution show his conduct was not cheap?
Regardless of impeding the official investigation, there’s mounting proof {that a} “cheap officer” would not have accomplished what the ICE agent who killed Renee Good did:
- NONE of the opposite officers on the scene (and there have been a LOT) pulled out a weapon to shoot Renee Good or anybody else. That is actually the take a look at: the court docket creates a hypothetical whereby somebody different than the defendant is in the identical scenario and asks whether or not that different officer would do the identical factor. Right here, there’s video proof that many different officers did NOT do the identical factor.
- The written DHS coverage explicitly supplies that ICE brokers “are prohibited from discharging firearms on the operator of a transferring car…except the usage of lethal drive in opposition to the operator is justified beneath the requirements articulated elsewhere on this coverage. Earlier than utilizing lethal drive beneath these circumstances, the [ICE agent] should think about the hazards that could be posed to regulation enforcement and harmless bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance.” The “justifying requirements” refers as to if the ICE agent moderately (objectively) believed capturing the driving force was essential to keep away from an “imminent risk of demise or critical bodily harm” to a different officer or individual. This written coverage–which the ICE agent ought to have been skilled on–evidences {that a} cheap officer ought to not have been reaching for his gun to shoot a driver. The truth that the automobile did, in actual fact, crash into one other car straight because of the ICE agent’s conduct additionally suggests he failed to think about the potential hurt to bystanders, because the coverage requires.
- JD Vance acknowledged in his press convention that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good “deserves a debt of gratitude” as a result of he has been struck by automobiles whereas on the job, up to now six months, as soon as struggling accidents that required greater than 30 stitches. By making an attempt to drum up empathy for this ICE agent, JD Vance might have inadvertently assisted a possible prosecutor in proving that the ICE agent was not a “cheap officer,” however one affected by trauma and even PTSD. Whereas everybody else (together with the opposite officers on scene) seen the wheels turning slowly away from him as not an “imminent risk to life,” as a result of this ICE agent had been run over by a automobile twice within the final 6 months, his analysis of the circumstances was skewed and thus unreasonable.
What now? Is somebody going to cost him or what?
Barring unforeseeable circumstances, we are able to safely assume no federal expenses will probably be introduced in opposition to the ICE agent who killed Renee Good. The DOJ received’t even conduct an official investigation of this murder and it’s presently unclear to what diploma the FBI is conducting a great religion investigation. In different phrases, the federal authorities will not prosecute the ICE agent who killed Renee Good.
What concerning the state of Minnesota? Bear in mind, we dwell beneath a federalist system of presidency, that, regardless of the Supremacy Clause, nonetheless adheres to rigorous division between federal and state regulation. Homicide (and associated actions) violates quite a lot of legal guidelines in Minnesota and the state has an curiosity in punishing perpetrators of such violent crimes. The Legal professional Basic’s Workplace and the Hennepin County Legal professional’s Workplace have each indicated, not less than preliminarily, that they intend to analyze the matter, which might underpin a prison prosecution. Sadly, the US Legal professional’s Workplace (i.e., the DOJ) has basically frozen out the native justice departments, as a clear ploy to forestall the gathering of proof essential to open a prison matter.
The reality is… the percentages {that a} trial will proceed beneath the circumstances are very slim. From 2015 to 2021, there have been 59 shootings by ICE brokers, 23 of which have been deadly. There isn’t any proof {that a} single a type of ICE brokers was ever indicted. Consultant Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has publicly decried the federal authorities’s statements and stance on the investigation and he or she, together with 159 different congressmen have demanded that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good be suspended and {that a} full, clear investigation of the incident be carried out by a 3rd celebration. I’ve quite a lot of admiration for Rep. Omar’s tenacity. I’m very heartened to know the individuals of Minnesota have such a fierce and dogged advocate. My hope is she and her friends can do one thing unprecedented.
So, can we simply surrender and do nothing?
No.
We do not surrender and do nothing.
There are some things you are able to do to make sure one thing like what occurred to Renee Good doesn’t happen in your neighborhood:
- Name the DOJ and demand they absolutely examine the murder. They are often reached at (202) 514-3847. Ask for Harmeet Dhillon, the one who made the decision to STOP the investigation.
- Submit proof if in case you have any footage, pictures, or different proof which may help a prosecution of the ICE agent who killed Renee Good.
- Vote this November. 2026 isn’t a presidential election yr, however it is a midterm election yr. In 2022, lower than half of these eligible to vote did so. Congress has tripled its funds for ICE from 2025-2029, allocating $75 billion to ICE and associated companies. Even when we can’t maintain this particular ICE agent accountable, we are able to maintain our elected officers accountable for writing ICE what basically quantities to a clean test.
- Donate to organizations that may maintain the federal government accountable. The ACLU has protected quite a few people from due course of violations. The Nationwide Immigration Regulation Middle supplies infinite sources for immigrants and their households. The Acacia Middle for Justice focuses on the rights and safety of kids, who are sometimes caught within the fray or fall via the cracks of brutal and unconstitutional enforcement ways.
- Say one thing even when it feels a bit uncomfortable. It may be as easy and well mannered as “yeah…I’m sorry, however I simply don’t assume it’s cheap for a authorities worker to be capturing ladies–or anybody else–within the face. That’s all I’ve to say about it.” As we noticed with JD Vance et al., that is as a lot a PR recreation as it’s a authorized subject. The extra we enable the federal government to normalize what all of us noticed, the extra possible it should occur many times and once more.
I’m positive you have got lots extra questions, however this publish is already getting fairly lengthy, so I’ll depart it at this. Like I mentioned, going over the legal guidelines, pulling out case regulation and regulation evaluate articles–that’s how I soothe myself throughout instances like these. I perceive which may not be your factor. However, it’s nonetheless essential to know what the regulation is, in order that we are able to precisely maintain individuals to account when it isn’t being enforced. For instance, I know there are a lot of people that took JD Vance’s mis-statement about “absolute immunity” at face worth (imagine me, I’ve acquired sufficient feedback to my Fb publish to know his little mind-trick has been distressingly efficient).
My level is, even in case you don’t assume the regulation is beneficial, in the intervening time, your information is.
Parting Ideas
Over the previous week, I’ve been posting nothing however authorized content material on my social media channels. I’ve acquired hundreds of feedback, most of that are well-intentioned and supportive. However one remark I’ve seen time and again is that this:
The regulation doesn’t matter. Nobody cares. They don’t observe the regulation.
When the federal government stifles investigations and refuses to even look into the killing of a US citizen by a federal agent, it undoubtedly feels just like the regulation has been rendered ineffective. Each one who has ever watched even one episode of CSI or Regulation & Order is aware of {that a} regulation enforcement officer can’t fireplace his or her weapon with out having a full investigation ensue. Everybody additionally is aware of that when such tragedy befalls a neighborhood, a metropolis, a state, and a nation, the nation’s leaders ought to not instantly go on TV–with out finishing any investigation–and baselessly accuse the lifeless US citizen of being a “home terrorist” or a “deranged leftist.”
So, is it true? Does the regulation now not matter?
In direction of the top of final yr, the Supreme Courtroom issued an interim order. Simply 3 pages. Unsigned. However in it, the bulk did one thing fairly essential:
It denied Trump’s repeated makes an attempt to deploy the Nationwide Guard in Illinois.
Trump hoped to make use of the Nationwide Guard to help and bolster the very ICE brokers wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods. And for as soon as, the regulation mentioned:
No.
The regulation doesn’t all the time work when, or the best way, we would like it to. However, there isn’t any doubt that even now, the regulation may be very a lot at work. There are judges all through this Republic who’re placing their lives in danger day-after-day making an attempt to uphold the bulwark. Whether or not it’s the district court docket decide demanding solutions from ICE brokers or the state court docket decide stopping the detention of immigrants in his courtroom or the Supreme Courtroom Justice who writes dissent after dissent to sound the alarm and fend off those that would make a mockery of the Structure they took an oath to uphold, there are such a lot of who proceed to tirelessly defend that oath with their careers and even their lives.
They’re not giving up. And neither ought to we.
Wishing you all one of the best,
-Joanne
