No, ICE Goons Do Not Have “Absolute Immunity” From State Prosecution Despite What JD Vance Would Have You Believe

January 15, 2026 Gloria Shaw

Vice President J.D. Vance has come under sharp legal scrutiny after asserting that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on January 7 enjoys “absolute immunity” from state prosecution.

In a public statement, Vance declared: “The precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action—that’s a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job.”

However, legal scholars and historical Supreme Court precedent paint a far more nuanced—and limiting picture. The notion of blanket “absolute immunity” for federal agents acting in their official capacity has never been the law, and Vance’s invocation of the 1890 case In re Neagle as establishing such a rule is incomplete and misleading.

Looking At The Neagle Case–A Narrow, Contextual Ruling

In In re Neagle (1890), the Supreme Court held that David Neagle, a federal marshal assigned to protect Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, could not be prosecuted by California state authorities after fatally shooting a man who attacked Field on a train traveling through the state.

The Court reasoned that Neagle was “acting under the authority of the law of the United States” and was therefore “not liable to answer in the courts of California” for actions taken in the lawful discharge of his federal duty.

Critically, the decision turned on the specific facts: Neagle was carrying out a clear federal mandate (protecting a Supreme Court justice), and there was no genuine dispute that his use of force was justified under the circumstances.

The ruling did not establish a broad, categorical shield for all federal officers in all situations.

How About Drury v. Lewis (1906)–The Crucial Limiting Precedent

Sixteen years later, the Supreme Court directly addressed—and rejected the kind of sweeping “absolute immunity” argument Vance now advances.

In Drury v. Lewis (1906), a U.S. soldier shot and killed a man suspected of stealing copper from a federal arsenal in Pennsylvania. The soldier’s attorney argued—citing In re Neagle—that because he was performing a federal duty, state courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him for murder, even if he used excessive force.

Assistant Attorney General Milton Purdy, representing the federal position, urged the Court to adopt a broad immunity rule: even if the soldier used more force than warranted, “since he was engaged in performing a duty imposed upon him by a law of the United States, the state courts are without jurisdiction to call him to account.”

The Supreme Court rejected that position outright.

The Court held that the soldier’s guilt or innocence “was for the state court if it had jurisdiction, and this the state court had, even though it was [the soldier’s] duty to pursue and arrest [the suspect].” Importantly, the Court emphasized that the lawfulness of the use of force was “open to dispute on the evidence,” allowing the state murder trial to proceed.

In other words, while federal officers performing official duties may raise federal defenses, they are not categorically immune from state prosecution—especially when the reasonableness of their use of deadly force is contested.

Did You Know?:FBI Just Raids Home of Reporter Investigating Trump

Application to the Minneapolis Shooting

The shooting of Renee Nicole Good occurred during an ICE operation targeting undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis. Video footage shows agents approaching Good’s SUV before multiple shots are fired, after which the vehicle moves forward and collides with another car.

37-year-old Renee Nicole Good fatally shot by ICE in Minneapolis on January 7

DHS claims the agent acted in self-defense, alleging Good “weaponized her vehicle.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and local officials have called this characterization “bulls—,” asserting the footage shows reckless use of force.

Under Drury v. Lewis, Minnesota state authorities retain jurisdiction to investigate and potentially prosecute the agent if questions about the lawfulness of the shooting remain disputed.

Vance’s blanket assertion of “absolute immunity” is therefore not supported by controlling precedent and contradicts the Supreme Court’s clear holding that state courts may weigh such cases when the justification for deadly force is contested.

In Case You Missed It: Jack Smith, Who Claimed He Found Dirt on Trump, Is Now Set to Give Live Testimony in Major Reversal

What to Take From All These

The debate over the Minneapolis shooting illustrates the ongoing tension between federal law enforcement authority and state sovereignty. While federal officers are generally shielded from state prosecution when acting lawfully within their jurisdiction, the protection is not absolute. When use of force is disputed, states retain the right to investigate and prosecute.

This principle is particularly important in the current political climate, where federal immigration enforcement operations increasingly intersect with local communities.

A categorical immunity rule, as Vance suggested, would effectively immunize federal agents from any meaningful state-level accountability—even in cases of clear misconduct.

Civil rights organizations and legal scholars have already called for Minnesota authorities to assert jurisdiction, arguing that the disputed facts of the shooting make it precisely the kind of case Drury preserved for state courts.

TOP STORIES

The Minneapolis shooting of Good remains under investigation, with significant factual disputes that fall squarely within the scope of state authority. Whether Minnesota pursues charges—and whether federal officials attempt to block them will likely become a major legal and political flashpoint in the months ahead.

For now, the precedent is clear: federal agents are not above the law, and state courts retain jurisdiction to hold them accountable when the justification for deadly force is legitimately contested.

Vance’s assertion of “absolute immunity” is, simply put, not the law.