The immigration and customs enforcement agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good. There is no debate on that fact. The two questions are whether his act was criminal, and if so, can he be held accountable for his behavior.
Those questions face steep legal obstacles. Three separate doctrines make criminal prosecution difficult. Together, they raise serious doubts about whether Ross will ever stand trial.
The first obstacle is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. Courts have long interpreted it to limit state authority over federal officials.
Under current Supreme Court doctrine, states generally may not prosecute federal agents for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. This protection is often referred to as the Supremacy Clause bar. It applies even when the conduct would otherwise violate state criminal law.
Courts have recognized narrow exceptions to this rule. A state may bring charges if a federal officer acted as a private individual or clearly outside federal authority. Those exceptions are rare and difficult to establish.
In this case, those exceptions appear unlikely to apply. Kristi Noem has stated that Ross was acting as an ICE agent and following departmental procedures. Legal analysts say that statement alone may effectively block a state criminal case.
The timing of Noem’s statement has drawn concern. It was made before a full investigation by the FBI or the Department of Justice. Critics argue that such premature conclusions can foreclose state action before all the facts are known.
State prosecution is not the only possible path. The federal government could still bring criminal charges against Ross. But any such case would face a second major legal barrier.
That barrier is qualified immunity. Law enforcement officers are given broad discretion to use force, including deadly force, while performing their duties. The doctrine shields officers unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional standards.
The Supreme Court evaluates deadly force under the Fourth Amendment. Courts apply what is known as the objective reasonableness test. The question is whether a reasonable officer, facing the same circumstances at the same moment, would have believed deadly force was necessary.
The analysis focuses on perceived threats at the instant force was used. Courts do not rely on hindsight. Factors include whether the suspect posed an immediate danger and whether others were at risk.
Overcoming qualified immunity is difficult but not impossible. Prosecutors cleared that hurdle before trying Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd. Only after doing so could they attempt to prove criminal guilt.
Even if qualified immunity were overcome, prosecutors would face a third obstacle. They would still need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross committed a crime. That standard applies to all criminal defendants.
To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove both conduct and intent. They must show that Ross caused the death and acted with the mental state required by law. That burden is substantial.
For example, second-degree murder under Minnesota law requires proof of intent to cause death without premeditation. Other charges, such as manslaughter, carry different intent requirements. In every case, intent must be proven.
Taken together, these barriers make state prosecution highly unlikely. Legal experts say it would be extremely difficult for Minneapolis or Minnesota to bring Ross to trial. Federal prosecution remains possible but faces similar challenges.
Criminal liability is not the only possible avenue for accountability. Good’s family could bring a civil rights lawsuit against the United States government, with Ross named for actions taken in his official capacity. Such a suit would allege a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
Civil cases also face the hurdle of qualified immunity. The family would need to show that Ross’s actions were so unreasonable that constitutional protections do not apply. Courts have set a high bar, though it has been overcome in rare cases.
The case highlights a broader issue. States have limited power to hold federal law enforcement officers accountable through criminal law. The system relies heavily on the federal government to police its own.
Early public statements by federal officials have raised questions about whether that process will be impartial. If no charges are brought, critics warn the case could reinforce perceptions that federal agents operate with near-total immunity. For the family of Renee Nicole Good, accountability may ultimately depend on whether federal authorities choose to act.
Thanks, David, for your legal framework analysis—explaining the hurdles any prosecution would face, but you didn’t offer an examination of whether the actual shooting itself was justified or criminal based on what actually happened. We’re fortunate that Heather Cox Richardson has done that in her post on FB yesterday,
There are a lot of comments on Richardson’s post which are a good indication of what a jury might think.They are also a good indication of what the general public will think about how elected officials act and speak about the murder of Renee Good. The facts of the murder are not going to go away. There is no time limit on murder charges. The obviously false narratives being spewed will become even more obviously ridiculous in future elections. Kristi Noem might get elected again to a county office if she moves someplace way down south. It’s more likely she’ll become a correspondent on Alpha News and never do close-ups. Will Minnesota Republicans elect the spewers again, is the question.