Vice President J.D. Vance asserted that an ICE agent who shot Renee Nicole Goodin is protected by “absolute immunity,” a claim legal experts rejected as an overstatement. Courts apply a two-step test — whether the officer acted within official duties and whether the conduct was objectively reasonable — when assessing immunity defenses. The investigation is complicated by limited state access to evidence, and prosecutors face steep hurdles for both criminal charges and civil suits, including qualified immunity and the high burden of proving willfulness for federal deprivation-of-rights charges.
Do ICE Agents Have Absolute Immunity? Experts Say No — But State Prosecutions Face High Hurdles
US Vice President JD Vance speaks during a press briefing in the Brady Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, DC on January 8, 2026. (Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images) - Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Vice President J.D. Vance’s statement that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who fatally shot Renee Nicole Goodin in Minneapolis is “protected by absolute immunity” drew immediate pushback from legal experts, who said the reality is far more legally complex.
What Vance Said
Speaking from the White House, Vance suggested Minnesota prosecutors would be blocked from bringing state criminal charges against the agent. “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,” Vance said, echoing other administration officials. “I’ve never seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by a judge.”
Legal Experts Push Back
Legal scholars quickly disputed the assertion that federal officers enjoy blanket or absolute immunity for on-the-job crimes. “The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” said Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert. Experts note that more than a century of case law interpreting the Supremacy Clause and related doctrines allows state prosecution of federal officials in some circumstances, but whether immunity applies depends on the facts and legal analysis in each case.
“Officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law,” said Timothy Sini, a former federal prosecutor in New York.
The Two-Step Immunity Analysis
If a federal official is charged with state crimes, the case may be removed to federal court where a judge will typically conduct a two-part inquiry:
- Scope of Duties: Was the agent acting within the scope of their official duties? Courts treat this as a relatively low threshold.
- Reasonableness: Was the conduct objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances as known to the officer at the time? This step often requires detailed factual development — witness testimony, video evidence, and other materials — and is typically the dispositive issue.
“At every step of the way, (reasonableness is) essentially what you’re determining,” Sini said. “What is objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and turns on those facts known to the officer at the precise moment.”
Investigation Complications
The ability of state prosecutors to pursue charges in this case is complicated by access to evidence. Federal authorities reportedly blocked state investigators from full participation in the probe of the fatal encounter, prompting criticism from Minnesota officials. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said it could not meet state investigative standards without full access to evidence and witness interviews, and it expects the FBI to complete a thorough investigation and share its findings.
Criminal and Federal Options
Even if state charges are pursued, federal prosecutors could instead bring charges under statutes such as deprivation of rights under color of law, which has been used in past high-profile use-of-force cases. But securing a conviction on such federal charges is challenging because prosecutors must prove the officer willfully violated the victim’s constitutional rights beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil Remedies and Qualified Immunity
Goodin’s family could file a civil wrongful-death lawsuit seeking monetary damages. In federal civil court, however, defendants commonly raise qualified immunity as a defense. If a court finds qualified immunity applies, it can bar the lawsuit from proceeding. Some legal scholars note that courts have denied qualified immunity in particularly egregious cases, so the outcome is fact-dependent.
Bottom Line
Experts say federal officials are not categorically shielded by absolute immunity, but removing immunity and winning criminal or civil liability will often require extensive factual findings and careful judicial analysis. The investigation’s scope and which prosecutors — state or federal — decide to pursue charges will play a major role in any ultimate outcome.
Help us improve.
