Legal Debate Intensifies Over ICE Agents’ Fatal Shootings of Good and Pretti
Updated (2 articles)
Incident Overview and Victim Details: Two ICE agents shot and killed 37‑year‑old Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis within weeks of each other, with Good shot after an alleged attempt to run an agent over and Pretti shot while kneeling and unarmed [1]. Good’s SUV did not strike the agent, and video footage contradicts the department’s narrative of imminent danger [1]. Both victims were labeled “domestic terrorists” by DHS despite the lack of supporting evidence in the released videos [1].
Agency Accounts and Self‑Defense Claims: DHS described Good’s shooting as self‑defense, stating the agent fired after she allegedly tried to run him over, even though the vehicle’s front passenger side never contacted the officer [1]. The agency provided no comparable justification for Pretti’s killing, noting only that he was unarmed and kneeling at the time of the shot [1]. No official DHS statement has clarified the legal basis for the second shooting [1].
Legal Standards and Immunity Issues: Minnesota law and ICE policy both apply an “objective reasonableness” standard for deadly force, requiring that a reasonable officer believe deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious injury [1]. Legal scholars refute Vice President JD Vance’s claim of absolute immunity for federal agents, explaining that only qualified immunity applies and does not shield agents from criminal or civil‑rights liability when actions are unreasonable [1]. The reasonableness of the agents’ beliefs and the availability of less‑lethal options will be central to any judicial review [1].
Potential State Prosecution and Federal Action: Scholars argue Minnesota could gather sufficient evidence to bring state murder charges against the agents, though any case would likely be moved to federal court for a reasonableness review [1]. Federal prosecution of ICE agents is rare, and the Department of Justice has not announced any intent to charge the shooters [1]. Civil suits face high hurdles due to qualified‑immunity protections, limiting immediate legal recourse for the victims’ families [1].
Timeline
Early Jan 2026 – Renée Good, 37, is shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis after DHS alleges she tried to run the officer over; the department calls the shooting self‑defense, while video footage appears to contradict that account[2].
Mid‑Jan 2026 – ICE agent Alex Pretti is shot while kneeling and unarmed in Minneapolis; DHS labels him a “domestic terrorist,” but video evidence suggests he was not a threat[2].
Jan 8 2026 – Vice President JD Vance, speaking at a White House event, asserts the ICE officer is protected by “absolute immunity” under the Supremacy Clause and predicts a judge will dismiss the case[1].
Jan 8 2026 – Constitutional‑law scholars dispute Vance’s claim, citing long‑standing case law that immunity is not absolute and that state prosecutors could bring charges if warranted[1].
Jan 8 2026 – Minnesota investigators report that federal officials have blocked them from participating in the probe of Good’s death, limiting access to evidence and witnesses; the FBI is expected to lead a joint investigation[1].
Jan 8 2026 – Prosecutors consider a federal charge of deprivation of rights under color of law for the officer, noting that proving willful deprivation is required and that similar charges have been used in other high‑profile Minneapolis deadly‑force cases[1].
Jan 8 2026 – Good’s family prepares a wrongful‑death civil suit, but qualified‑immunity defenses could block it, although some courts have set aside immunity in egregious cases[1].
Jan 26 2026 – Legal scholar Bennett Gershman argues that Minnesota could gather enough evidence to bring state murder charges against the ICE agents, though the case would likely be moved to federal court for a reasonableness review[2].
Jan 26 2026 – Gershman clarifies that the “absolute immunity” claim is legally inaccurate; ICE officers, like other police, receive only qualified immunity when acting reasonably, and absolute immunity does not shield them from criminal or civil‑rights prosecutions[2].
Jan 26 2026 – Both Minnesota law and ICE policy apply an “objective reasonableness” standard to deadly‑force decisions; judges will assess whether the agents’ belief was reasonable and whether less‑lethal options existed[2].
Jan 26 2026 – The Department of Justice has not announced any federal charges against the ICE agents, underscoring that federal prosecution of ICE officers is rare[2].
All related articles (2 articles)
External resources (3 links)
- https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/three-former-minneapolis-police-officers-convicted-federal-civil-rights-violations-death (cited 1 times)
- https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law (cited 1 times)
- https://x.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/1981495700450893894 (cited 1 times)