Law Q&A: ICE, Renee Good, and More.
By now, especially if you live in the United States, you’ve seen or at least heard of the footage capturing the violent killing of Renee Good. I’ve watched many of the available angles, including the clip that was “leaked” from the ICE agent’s own cell phone. I cannot underscore enough just how brutal and disturbing it is to watch. Perhaps most horrific was the sound of Renee Good’s wife screaming in the background, while she held their dog (who was also in the car). It could have easily been a scene out of a horror movie.
Only it wasn’t. It was real. It was horrible.
It is America.
As you know, while I consider myself to be a cookbook author and recipe developer, first, I am still an attorney (I literally just re-upped my registration for 2026 a few moments ago, which means I’ve been a practicing lawyer for a whopping 22 years). As a result, when I see things like this, I discard the apron for my lawyer-hat. I realize, now, that doing so is, in part, like reaching for my “comfort blanket” (I did actually have one when I was a child). When the world starts to look and feel lawless, it’s soothing to identify and even recite the laws designed to keep anarchy at bay.
If you’re anything like me, you’re probably searching for answers, so I’m writing this post to address questions you might have regarding the various “legalities,” with some light commentary/observations sprinkled in. I’ve been told I’m pretty good at breaking down potentially complicated legal issues so they are readily understandable to non-lawyers. That’s what I’m aiming to do here–help you understand what the law is, whether it’s being enforced, and what can be done about any of this.
Can the ICE agent who killed Renee Good be prosecuted?
Yes.
There are multiple examples of ICE agents being criminally prosecuted. For example, just last year, a [now] former ICE officer was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for using his position to violate the civil rights of women. Also last year, a former DHS officer was sentenced to 70 months in prison for using his badge to launder illicit drug proceeds. Another example involves a former ICE agent who was arrested for domestic violence. He is now facing both federal and state charges.
But I thought the VP of the United States said the ICE agent who killed Renee Good has “absolute immunity”?
JD Vance stated in his press conference that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good was “protected by absolute immunity.” This is categorically false. As evidenced by the 3 cases I listed above–all of which happened in the past year alone–there is no such thing as “absolute immunity” for ICE agents, including the one who killed Renee Good.
Why would JD Vance say something that is not true?
JD Vance went to Yale Law School–one of the BEST law schools in the country. He knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that what he stated is FALSE. Every lawyer in the United States knows that what JD Vance said is as wrong as asserting “The First Amendment protects your right to raise pigs in your apartment.” JD Vance knows that we lawyers know this. But, he’s counting on all the non-lawyers watching his press conference not to know this. He uses fancy words like “absolute immunity” to Jedi-mind-trick laypeople into believing the government cannot do anything about what we all saw. Don’t be tricked.
But surely there must be some immunity for ICE agents?
Yes. There are various immunities that can apply to government employees, including ICE agents. The one at issue in the killing of Renee Good is often referred to as Supremacy Clause “immunity.” Specifically, the US Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, itself, provides, pretty straightforwardly, that the US Constitution trumps any conflicting state laws and is the “supreme law of the land.”
How does that translate into immunity for ICE agents? Courts have interpreted the Supremacy Clause to “protect[] federal officers and agents under some circumstances from being charged with state-law crimes for conduct undertaken in the performance of their federal duties.” (See Mannheimer, “Unpacking Supremacy Clause Immunity.”) Note the “some circumstances,” again underscoring the lack of any “absolute immunity.”
So far, it’s been pretty easy to follow, right?
Ok, so what are those “circumstances”?
Well, this is where it gets lawyer-y and hard. ANYTIME a federal officer or agent gets criminally charged or even sued, they will assert immunity. Then, the court will have to determine whether immunity should apply (again, if “absolute immunity” existed, courts would not have to do this…), before the matter proceeds to trial. What will the court look at to make that determination?
Generally speaking, the court will try to answer two questions:
- Was the federal officer engaged in performing their federal duties?
- Did the officer honestly and reasonably believe that his conduct was necessary and appropriate to carry out those duties?
If the answer to both these questions is “yes,” then immunity will apply and the criminal proceeding will be dismissed.
What does it mean that the “federal officer was engaged in performing their federal duties”?
I (and many others) tend to view this as a fairly technical question: was the agent on the job while doing the thing that might be against the law? Obviously, murder and money laundering is not in anyone’s job description, so doing something illegal isn’t, by itself, dispositive (or possibly even relevant). The question in this first inquiry is NOT whether he was doing his job properly or even legally, but whether he was under the color of employment at the time. In the civil context, for example, you can only sue an employer for the employee’s wrongful conduct if that employee was “on the job” at the time that conduct occurred. I think this is a useful analogy for looking at this first question.
At bottom, this first question is a gatekeeper. It potentially cuts off the lengthy immunity analysis before it gets to the much trickier second question (which is really two questions buried in one–something lawyers love to do). How does it do that? Let’s take the example above of the ICE officer who was arrested for domestic violence. The Supremacy Clause will not protect an ICE officer who abuses his girlfriend while off-duty. Therefore, courts can answer just that first question and end the analysis there: nope, he wasn’t on the job at the time the complaint of conduct occurred, so I don’t need to waste my time even asking whether his conduct was necessary and proper to do that job. Immunity doesn’t apply. Case proceeds to trial.
Ok. 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 mean he “honestly believed” it was necessary to shoot her to do his job?
Not necessarily. He could obviously be lying about his subjective belief. I mean… wouldn’t you? Hopefully, you’re not the type of person who would shoot a person 3 times in the face, but put yourself in his shoes: wouldn’t you lie like your life depended on it in this situation? I think we can all safely assume that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good has every incentive to lie about his subjective belief. But, there is now quite a bit of evidence that he did not “honestly believe” his life was endangered.
For one, he used his phone to film the whole thing. At one point, he even switched the hand that was holding his phone, so he could literally capture the shooting. Moreover, instead of crying, breathing hard, or taking a second to recover from the purportedly “life threatening” encounter, the ICE agent walks away without so much as batting an eye, muttering the words “fuckin’ bitch” under his breath. Neither of these things sounds like something a person who was afraid for his life would do.
It does, however, track as something a man who is very angry that a woman challenged his authority might do.
Let’s assume he’s telling the truth, though. Then what? Does immunity apply?
Not so fast.
Remember when I said that question #2 is actually two questions disguised as one? Let’s take a look at question #2 again:
“Did the officer honestly and reasonably believe that his conduct was necessary and appropriate to carry out those duties?”
Question #2 doesn’t end with whether the officer had a subjective belief that what he did was “necessary and appropriate.” The law is many things, but it isn’t gullible. It knows that ICE agents will lie, so it requires both a subjective and objective belief that the conduct was necessary and appropriate. In other words, Question #2 can be divided into the following two parts:
- Did the officer honestly believe what he did was necessary and proper? AND
- Was that [honest] belief reasonable under the circumstances?
In other words, even if everyone believes the ICE agent when he says he felt his life was threatened, the court still needs to evaluate whether a reasonable officer in similar circumstances would have shot a woman driving away from him at what could be no more than 5 miles an hour three times in the face at point blank range while filming himself with his own cell phone with his free hand.
How can the prosecution prove his conduct was not reasonable?
Despite impeding the official investigation, there is mounting evidence that a “reasonable officer” would not have done what the ICE agent who killed Renee Good did:
- NONE of the other officers on the scene (and there were a LOT) pulled out a weapon to shoot Renee Good or anyone else. This is literally the test: the court creates a hypothetical wherein someone other than the defendant is in the same situation and asks whether that other officer would do the same thing. Here, there’s video evidence that many other officers did NOT do the same thing.
- The written DHS policy explicitly provides that ICE agents “are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle…unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the [ICE agent] must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance.” The “justifying standards” refers to whether the ICE agent reasonably (objectively) believed shooting the driver was necessary to avoid an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to another officer or person. This written policy–which the ICE agent should have been trained on–evidences that a reasonable officer should not have been reaching for his gun to shoot a driver. The fact that the car did, in fact, crash into another vehicle directly as a result of the ICE agent’s conduct also suggests he failed to consider the potential harm to bystanders, as the policy requires.
- JD Vance stated in his press conference that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good “deserves a debt of gratitude” because he has been struck by vehicles while on the job, in the past six months, once suffering injuries that required more than 30 stitches. By trying to drum up empathy for this ICE agent, JD Vance may have inadvertently assisted a potential prosecutor in proving that the ICE agent was not a “reasonable officer,” but one suffering from trauma or even PTSD. While everyone else (including the other officers on scene) viewed the wheels turning slowly away from him as not an “imminent threat to life,” because this ICE agent had been run over by a car twice in the last 6 months, his evaluation of the circumstances was skewed and thus unreasonable.
What now? Is someone going to charge him or what?
Barring unforeseeable circumstances, we can safely assume no federal charges will be brought against the ICE agent who killed Renee Good. The DOJ won’t even conduct an official investigation of this homicide and it is presently unclear to what degree the FBI is conducting a good faith investigation. In other words, the federal government will not prosecute the ICE agent who killed Renee Good.
What about the state of Minnesota? Remember, we live under a federalist system of government, that, despite the Supremacy Clause, still adheres to rigorous division between federal and state law. Murder (and related actions) violates a lot of laws in Minnesota and the state has an interest in punishing perpetrators of such violent crimes. The Attorney General’s Office and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office have both indicated, at least preliminarily, that they intend to investigate the matter, which could underpin a criminal prosecution. Unfortunately, the US Attorney’s Office (i.e., the DOJ) has essentially frozen out the local justice departments, as a transparent ploy to prevent the collection of evidence necessary to open a criminal matter.
The truth is… the odds that a trial will proceed under the circumstances are very slim. From 2015 to 2021, there were 59 shootings by ICE agents, 23 of which were fatal. There is no evidence that a single one of those ICE agents was ever indicted. Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has publicly decried the federal government’s statements and stance on the investigation and she, along with 159 other congressmen have demanded that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good be suspended and that a full, transparent investigation of the incident be conducted by a third party. I have a great deal of admiration for Rep. Omar’s tenacity. I’m very heartened to know the people of Minnesota have such a fierce and dogged advocate. My hope is she and her peers can do something unprecedented.
So, do we just give up and do nothing?
No.
We do not give up and do nothing.
There are a few things you can do to ensure something like what happened to Renee Good doesn’t occur in your neighborhood:
- Call the DOJ and demand they fully investigate the homicide. They can be reached at (202) 514-3847. Ask for Harmeet Dhillon, the one who made the call to STOP the investigation.
- Submit evidence if you have any footage, photos, or other evidence that might support a prosecution of the ICE agent who killed Renee Good.
- Vote this November. 2026 is not a presidential election year, but it is a midterm election year. In 2022, less than half of those eligible to vote did so. Congress has tripled its budget for ICE from 2025-2029, allocating $75 billion to ICE and related agencies. Even if we cannot hold this specific ICE agent accountable, we can hold our elected officials accountable for writing ICE what essentially amounts to a blank check.
- Donate to organizations that can hold the government accountable. The ACLU has protected numerous individuals from due process violations. The National Immigration Law Center provides endless resources for immigrants and their families. The Acacia Center for Justice focuses on the rights and protection of children, who are often caught in the fray or fall through the cracks of brutal and unconstitutional enforcement tactics.
- Say something even when it feels a little uncomfortable. It can be as simple and polite as “yeah…I’m sorry, but I just don’t think it’s reasonable for a government employee to be shooting women–or anyone else–in the face. That’s all I have to say about it.” As we saw with JD Vance et al., this is as much a PR game as it is a legal issue. The more we allow the government to normalize what we all saw, the more likely it will happen again and again and again.
I’m sure you have plenty more questions, but this post is already getting pretty long, so I’ll leave it at this. Like I said, going over the laws, pulling out case law and law review articles–that’s how I soothe myself during times like these. I understand that might not be your thing. But, it’s still important to know what the law is, so that we can accurately hold people to account when it isn’t being enforced. For example, I know there are a lot of people who took JD Vance’s mis-statement about “absolute immunity” at face value (believe me, I’ve received enough comments to my Facebook post to know his little mind-trick has been distressingly effective).
My point is, even if you don’t think the law is useful, at the moment, your knowledge is.
Parting Thoughts
Over the past week, I’ve been posting nothing but legal content on my social media channels. I’ve received thousands of comments, most of which are well-intentioned and supportive. But one comment I’ve seen over and over again is this:
The law doesn’t matter. No one cares. They don’t follow the law.
When the government stifles investigations and refuses to even look into the killing of a US citizen by a federal agent, it definitely feels like the law has been rendered useless. Every person who has ever watched even one episode of CSI or Law & Order knows that a law enforcement officer cannot fire his or her weapon without having a full investigation ensue. Everyone also knows that when such tragedy befalls a neighborhood, a city, a state, and a nation, the nation’s leaders should not immediately go on TV–without completing any investigation–and baselessly accuse the dead US citizen of being a “domestic terrorist” or a “deranged leftist.”
So, is it true? Does the law no longer matter?
Towards the end of last year, the Supreme Court issued an interim order. Just 3 pages. Unsigned. But in it, the majority did something pretty important:
It denied Trump’s repeated attempts to deploy the National Guard in Illinois.
Trump was hoping to use the National Guard to support and bolster the very ICE agents wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods. And for once, the law said:
No.
The law doesn’t always work when, or the way, we want it to. But, there is no doubt that even now, the law is very much at work. There are judges throughout this Republic who are putting their lives at risk every day trying to uphold the bulwark. Whether it’s the district court judge demanding answers from ICE agents or the state court judge preventing the detention of immigrants in his courtroom or the Supreme Court Justice who writes dissent after dissent to sound the alarm and fend off those who would make a mockery of the Constitution they took an oath to uphold, there are so many who continue to tirelessly defend that oath with their careers and even their lives.
They’re not giving up. And neither should we.
Wishing you all the best,
-Joanne
Recent Newsletters
