Two fatal shootings by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis have raised a pressing constitutional question: when the federal government refuses to charge its own officers, can a state step in?
In January 2026, an ICE agent killed Renee Good and a Border Patrol agent killed Alex Pretti. Bystander videos appear to contradict official federal accounts of both incidents. The DOJ declined to bring criminal charges and has only announced a civil rights investigation into the Pretti case — a probe that carries no criminal weight.
Writing for Law360, attorney Sheila Tendy argues that Minnesota not only can prosecute these agents, but may have a constitutional obligation to consider it.
The key legal doctrine at play is “supremacy clause immunity,” which can shield federal officers from state prosecution — but only if they acted within authorized duties and reasonably believed the force used was necessary. Crucially, this immunity isn’t automatic and isn’t granted by the DOJ or any executive agency. It must be determined by a court on the actual facts.
Tendy argues that practical deterrents — fear of federal retaliation, political optics, and unfamiliar legal terrain — have caused state prosecutors to treat this conditional defense as an absolute one. It isn’t. The DOJ’s civil rights investigation doesn’t preempt Minnesota’s authority or confer immunity on the agents involved.
The publicly available video evidence, Tendy notes, may be enough to establish probable cause for state charges even without federal cooperation. Minnesota’s role, she concludes, is to bring its case to a court and let the judiciary draw the line — which is exactly how the constitutional system was designed to work.
We’re sharing the full article below for your convenience — it’s well worth the read.
About Sheila Tendy
Sheila Tendy advises corporations, not for profits and financial institutions as outside general counsel, managing a wide range of corporate and litigation matters.