By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Vice President J.D. Vance claimed ICE agents possess “absolute immunity” from state prosecution, citing the 1890 case *In re Neagle* as precedent. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Drury v. Lewis* contradicts this claim. In *Drury v. Lewis*, the court allowed a state court to consider murder charges against a U.S. soldier, even though he was acting in his official capacity, if the lawfulness of the force used was disputed. Therefore, Vance’s assertion of absolute immunity is an unsound interpretation of legal precedent.
Read the original article here
No, ICE agents do not have ‘absolute immunity’ from state prosecution. It’s a critical point to understand, especially in the context of the current political climate. The idea that ICE agents are untouchable by state laws, shielded from any accountability for their actions, is a dangerous fiction. While it may seem like there are obstacles, the reality is that states have the authority to investigate and prosecute ICE agents for crimes committed within their borders.
The crux of the matter is this: state crimes are state crimes. The President of the United States, for instance, cannot pardon someone for a state crime. That power resides with the governor of the state in which the crime occurred. It’s a fundamental principle of our federalist system, meant to ensure checks and balances and prevent absolute power from being concentrated in one place.
Now, this doesn’t mean that holding ICE agents accountable is always a simple process. The federal government can, and sometimes does, try to obstruct state investigations. This can manifest in various ways, such as refusing to cooperate, delaying access to evidence, or even attempting to move cases to federal court. But these actions are not proof of “absolute immunity.” They are attempts to evade justice, and they should be met with vigorous resistance.
Furthermore, the courts are the ultimate arbiters of justice. If the federal government attempts to obstruct a state investigation, the state can challenge those actions in court. The courts will ultimately decide whether the federal government’s actions are permissible and whether the state can proceed with its investigation. This is where the legal battle is fought, not in some pre-ordained declaration of immunity. The reality is that federal agents are not immune to legal scrutiny and should not be above the law, regardless of the agency they belong to.
Some might point to instances where ICE agents have seemingly avoided prosecution. It’s true that there can be legal hurdles and political maneuvering that make it difficult to bring charges. However, these challenges are not the same as absolute immunity. They are merely obstacles that must be overcome through persistence, determination, and a strong commitment to justice. Even if a federal government is reluctant to cooperate and a judge is not going to do their job, the state still retains the ability to pursue its case.
What many see as a failure in prosecuting is often a result of actions taken by other entities to allow the criminals to skirt around accountability. Federal judges may be appointed and may have specific views of the law that allow certain federal agents to avoid prosecution. But this is not absolute immunity; these are choices made within the legal system. It is a choice to allow the federal government to run amok, not a legal guarantee.
Ultimately, the fight to hold ICE agents accountable is a fight for the rule of law. It’s a fight to ensure that no one, regardless of their position or affiliation, is above the law. It’s a fight that should be supported by anyone who believes in justice, fairness, and the principles of a democratic society. It is the responsibility of those in power to stand up for the laws of the states.