The fatal shootings of two United States citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis have ignited public outrage, political controversy and a complex legal debate that strikes at the heart of American constitutional law. At issue is not merely whether the officers acted lawfully, but whether the legal system itself permits meaningful accountability when federal agents use lethal force during enforcement operations.
As video evidence challenges official narratives and local authorities openly dispute federal claims of self defence, the Minneapolis cases present a rare moment to examine the formidable legal architecture that protects federal officers from criminal and civil liability.
The Minneapolis shootings: Why these cases are legally unusual
In January 2026, ICE agents fatally shot two individuals in separate incidents during immigration enforcement actions.
The first involved thirty seven year old Renee Good, who was shot while seated in her vehicle. The Department of Homeland Security claimed the officer fired defensively after Good attempted to run him over. Video footage verified by open sources appears to undermine that assertion.
The second incident involved thirty seven year old Alex Pretti, shot during a confrontation at a protest scene. DHS alleged Pretti approached agents with a handgun and violently resisted. Video footage instead shows Pretti holding a mobile phone while attempting to assist protesters, with Minneapolis Police confirming that he lawfully possessed a firearm.
What elevates these incidents beyond routine use of force controversies is that both victims were United States citizens and both shootings occurred amid a highly politicised immigration enforcement campaign under President Donald Trump.
The legal standard for deadly force: Reasonableness as the core test
Under both Minnesota law and federal constitutional standards, the use of deadly force by law enforcement is governed by a single overriding principle: objective reasonableness.
Deadly force is justified only when a reasonable officer would believe it necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others. This assessment must be made from the perspective of the officer at the moment force was used, not with hindsight.
Importantly, reasonableness is not determined by the officer’s subjective fear alone. Courts examine whether that fear was objectively supported by observable facts.
This is where video evidence becomes legally decisive. When recordings materially contradict an officer’s account, courts are increasingly willing to question claims of self defence that once went largely unchallenged.
Federal supremacy and state power: Why Minnesota faces an uphill battle
Even if Minnesota authorities believe the shootings were unlawful, their ability to prosecute ICE agents is severely constrained.
Federal officers enjoy immunity from state prosecution when acting within the scope of their official duties. This doctrine flows from the constitutional principle of federal supremacy and has been repeatedly affirmed by United States courts.
To overcome this immunity, Minnesota would need to establish that the agents’ actions were either:
-
Outside the scope of their federal authority, or
-
Clearly unlawful and objectively unreasonable under federal law
If charges were filed, the agents would almost certainly seek removal of the case to federal court. At that stage, a federal judge would determine immunity as a threshold issue. A finding of immunity would permanently bar state prosecution under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Historically, states have rarely succeeded in clearing this legal hurdle.
Federal criminal prosecution: A theoretical remedy rarely used
In theory, the federal government can prosecute its own officers for unconstitutional killings. In practice, such prosecutions are extraordinarily rare.
Federal prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an officer knowingly violated the Constitution or acted with reckless disregard for constitutional limits. Mere negligence, poor judgment or even unreasonable conduct is not enough.
This requirement reflects a deliberate policy choice to avoid criminalising split second law enforcement decisions. However, it also creates a near insurmountable barrier to prosecution.
In the Minneapolis cases, the Trump administration has publicly defended the agents, making federal charges politically and institutionally improbable absent overwhelming evidence.
The power of qualified immunity in civil litigation
Criminal law is not the only avenue for accountability. Civil litigation is often the primary mechanism through which victims’ families seek redress. Yet here too, the law heavily favours federal officers.
Qualified immunity shields federal agents from civil liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. Courts interpret this standard narrowly, often requiring a prior case with nearly identical facts.
This doctrine has become one of the most powerful protections available to law enforcement. Even where courts find that excessive force was used, cases are frequently dismissed because the specific conduct had not previously been ruled unconstitutional.
For the families of Good and Pretti, qualified immunity represents a formidable obstacle.
The federal tort claims act: A limited and imperfect alternative
One remaining legal avenue lies in the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government itself for wrongful acts committed by its employees.
Under the FTCA, families may pursue compensation for wrongful death by alleging negligence or wrongful conduct. However, the statute does not allow for punitive damages, nor does it impose personal liability on the officers involved.
Moreover, FTCA claims are subject to numerous exceptions and procedural barriers. Courts have consistently described the Act as a compensation mechanism, not a tool for accountability.
As open sources have previously documented, legal experts widely regard the FTCA as an inadequate response to systemic law enforcement misconduct.
Video evidence and the future of use of force litigation
The Minneapolis cases reflect a broader shift in use of force litigation driven by the proliferation of video evidence. Bystander recordings increasingly challenge official narratives and force courts to confront factual disputes at earlier stages.
Yet even compelling video does not automatically overcome immunity doctrines. The law still prioritises institutional protection over individual accountability, particularly when federal officers are involved.
This tension lies at the centre of the Minneapolis controversy.
Accountability deferred by design
The legal question facing Minneapolis is not simply whether ICE agents can be prosecuted. It is whether the law permits prosecution at all under current doctrine.
The answer, grounded in decades of jurisprudence, is sobering. Federal immunity, qualified immunity and high prosecutorial thresholds collectively form a legal fortress that few cases penetrate.
The shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti may yet prompt internal investigations, civil settlements or political debate. Criminal accountability, however, remains a remote possibility.
For critics, this underscores a system that prioritises federal authority over individual rights. For defenders, it reflects a necessary shield for officers operating in dangerous environments.
Either way, the Minneapolis shootings expose a fundamental reality of American law enforcement. When federal agents pull the trigger, the law makes accountability the exception, not the rule.