U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents shot and killed two American citizens in separate law enforcement operations in Minneapolis this month, as part of President Donald Trump’s tough immigration campaign.
Local officials have disputed administration officials’ claims that the shootings were acts of self-defense, citing eyewitness video footage that appears to contradict the government’s official accounts.
Here’s a look at the potential legal ramifications for the officers.
What happened?
An ICE officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Goode in her car on Jan. 7. The Department of Homeland Security said the officer fired "defensive shots" after Goode tried to run him over with her car, though online video footage of the shooting, reviewed by Reuters, cast doubt on that account.
ICE agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretty in a separate incident on Jan. 24. The Department of Homeland Security said Pretty approached with a gun and violently resisted attempts to disarm him, though eyewitness video footage reviewed by Reuters showed Pretty — whom Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O"Hara said was legally carrying a gun — holding a phone while trying to help protesters who were being pushed to the ground by officers.
What does the law say?
Minnesota's use of force law allows state police to use deadly force only if a conscientious officer would reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves or others from death or serious bodily harm.
Federal law contains a similar standard, allowing the use of deadly force when a conscientious officer would have probable cause to believe that a person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Can federal employees be held criminally liable?
Federal agents are generally immune from state criminal prosecution for actions taken in the course of their official duties. This immunity applies only when the officer's actions were authorized by federal law and were necessary and proper.
If Minnesota charges the officers, they can ask to have the case transferred to federal court and argue that they are immune from prosecution. To succeed, the state must prove that their actions were outside the scope of their official duties or were objectively unreasonable or clearly unlawful. If a judge rules that the officer has immunity, the case will be dismissed and the state will not be able to bring charges again.
Can federal prosecutors bring charges?
Federal prosecutors can bring charges against law enforcement officers for fatal shootings, but the threshold is very high and charges are rare. Prosecutors must prove that the officer knew his or her conduct was unlawful or acted with reckless disregard for the constitutional limits of his or her authority — something that is difficult to prove in court. The Trump administration has so far defended the officers’ actions.
What protections would ICE agents have?
In addition to federal immunity, agents can argue that their actions were reasonable under the Constitution, that they acted in self-defense, or that they did not intend to harm or kill the victims.
Can victims’ families bring a civil lawsuit?
Federal employees are protected from civil lawsuits unless their conduct clearly violated a clearly established constitutional right. This legal standard, known as "qualified immunity," has become a highly effective tool for protecting police officers accused of excessive use of force, a series of Reuters investigations found in 2020.
However, victims can sue the federal government for damages when its officers cause financial or physical harm in the course of their work. This is governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which is an exception to the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity that normally shields the federal government from lawsuits.
In a case under this law, the plaintiff typically alleges that a government official acted negligently or wrongfully. The law allows families of people killed by ICE to seek compensation for wrongful death.
But while the law opens up a rare avenue for legal action against the federal government, such claims are limited and face significant obstacles, and legal experts generally consider it a weak mechanism for addressing wrongful actions by government officials.
The Killing of George Floyd and the Aftermath
The killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, again in Minneapolis, by a Minneapolis police officer, has sparked national and international protests against police brutality and racial discrimination. The footage of a police officer kneeling on Floyd's neck led to widespread public outcry and systemic reforms.
The main consequences were:
Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder and given a long prison sentence; other officers involved were also convicted or pleaded guilty.
The Minneapolis police force was subject to a federal investigation that found systemic civil rights violations.
The city accepted a reform agreement, including changes to the use of force, accountability, training, and oversight.
The case accelerated a national debate and legislative initiatives to limit excessive use of force and review qualified immunity.
This precedent made Minneapolis a symbolic place for public sensitivity to the actions of law enforcement. It is in this context that the current shootings by federal agents in the city are perceived with particular sharpness and are causing a wide public and political response.