Could an ICE agent who fatally shot a civilian be shielded from state prosecution? The answer lies in a complex legal concept called "Supremacy Clause immunity," and the Renee Good case in Minneapolis is about to put it to the ultimate test.
By Cara Tabachnick, News Editor, CBSNews.com
(Cara Tabachnick is a news editor at CBSNews.com with a background in crime reporting. She has written for Marie Claire, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, focusing on justice and human rights issues. Contact her at cara.tabachnick@cbsinteractive.com)
January 15, 2026 / 3:10 PM EST / CBS News
Last week's tragic shooting of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis has ignited a potentially explosive legal battle between the state and federal government. The core question: Can the state pursue criminal charges against a federal agent for actions taken while on duty?
If Minnesota decides to indict the ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, for Renee Good's death, Ross could argue he's protected by a specific type of immunity rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Vice President JD Vance has already weighed in, suggesting the officer is automatically immune simply because he's a federal agent. But here's where it gets controversial...
"That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job," Vance stated, reflecting a common, yet potentially oversimplified, understanding of the law. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that Good used her vehicle as a weapon, forcing the officer to act in self-defense. However, local officials, after reviewing video evidence, have expressed serious doubts about this narrative.
The FBI and Justice Department have taken over the investigation, a move that followed the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's (BCA) withdrawal. The BCA claimed it lacked "complete access" to crucial evidence, raising questions about transparency and cooperation between state and federal authorities.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem went even further, asserting that Minnesota officials have "don't have any jurisdiction in this investigation." But is that really the case?
According to Carolyn Shapiro, a law professor and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Secretary Noem's statement is "simply false." Shapiro, a former Illinois solicitor general, emphasizes that Minnesota absolutely has the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes committed within its borders.
However, attempting to bring state criminal charges in the Good case will undoubtedly face significant legal hurdles, primarily due to the potential invocation of Supremacy Clause immunity. This is where things get complicated, so let's break it down.
What Exactly is Supremacy Clause Immunity?
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, establishes federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that when state and federal laws clash, federal law generally wins. But this doesn't give federal agents a free pass to operate outside the law. And this is the part most people miss....
The Supremacy Clause limits states' ability to interfere with federal law through criminal prosecution. States can hold federal officials accountable for violating state law, as long as that law doesn't conflict with federal law. If there's a conflict, federal law takes precedence. However – and this is a big however – if state prosecutors can demonstrate that federal officials acted outside the scope of their official duties or violated federal law, then state law can prevail.
Bryna Godar, an attorney at the State Democracy Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin Law School, explains that federal officials can be prosecuted if they "acted beyond the scope of their duties, violated federal law, or behaved in an egregious or unwarranted manner." Think of it this way: a mail carrier can't claim immunity from reckless driving charges simply because they were delivering mail at the time of the accident.
Currently, the state is independently gathering evidence in the Good case. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty's office has created an online evidence portal, which she says has received a "substantial" number of submissions from the public. This suggests a strong community interest in ensuring a thorough and impartial investigation.
Moriarty reiterated that her office has jurisdiction to review the evidence and decide whether to file charges because the shooting occurred in Hennepin County, regardless of the FBI's involvement.
The Legal Process: How Supremacy Clause Immunity Works in Practice
If a state prosecutor obtains an indictment or files criminal charges against a federal officer, the officer has the right to have the case heard in federal court. It's at this point that the officer might invoke Supremacy Clause immunity, according to Robert McNamara, deputy litigation director for the Institute for Justice.
If charges are filed, Ross would likely appear before a federal judge and argue that his actions in shooting Good were reasonable and necessary to fulfill his federal duties. This is a separate legal question from whether the shooting actually constituted a crime under state law.
"That's the doctrine that's going to be at the center of the fight," McNamara emphasizes. The crucial point is that the federal government wouldn't be a direct party to this legal battle. The immunity dispute would be between Ross and the state of Minnesota. However, the federal government could provide support to Ross by hiring a defense attorney or filing an amicus brief (a "friend of the court" document offering legal arguments).
The federal court would then have to answer two key questions, as explained by Seth W. Stoughton, a law professor at South Carolina School of Law:
- Was Ross acting within the scope of his duties, as authorized by federal law?
- Was he performing those duties in a "necessary and proper" way?
If the court answers "yes" to both questions, Ross could be granted immunity from state prosecution, and the case would be dismissed. However, if the judge allows the prosecution to proceed, the case would remain in federal court, but state laws would be applied.
Federal courts have historically "permitted state authorities to prosecute federal officers for using deadly force when they conclude that the force could have been unreasonable or excessive," Stoughton notes.
He cites a case from the early 1990s involving an FBI sniper who killed an unarmed woman during the Ruby Ridge standoff. Idaho prosecutors charged the agent with involuntary manslaughter, and a federal court allowed the prosecution to proceed (although the case was later dropped by state prosecutors).
It's important to remember that states have been criminally prosecuting federal officials since the early 1880s, with varying degrees of success. Experts agree that Supremacy Clause immunity is a complex legal process, most often invoked during periods of heightened tension between state and federal governments.
And here's another interesting twist: If Ross were eventually convicted on state charges, he could not be pardoned by the President of the United States, Shapiro points out. The President's pardon power only extends to federal offenses, not state crimes.
Caroline Cummings contributed to this report.
Now, it's your turn to weigh in. Does the "Supremacy Clause" provide too much protection for federal agents, potentially shielding them from accountability for their actions? Or is it a necessary safeguard to ensure that federal law enforcement can operate effectively without undue interference from state authorities? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Is it possible that Vice President Vance jumped the gun in his assessment of the situation? Could the state's evidence portal actually prejudice the case against Ross? Let's discuss!
In:
* U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
* Minnesota
* United States Constitution
* Minneapolis
