Minneapolis released video footage of a January incident involving federal immigration officers and two Venezuelan men, which resulted in a nonfatal shooting and the suspension of two officers. The video, obtained by the New York Times, appears to contradict the federal government’s initial account of the events, leading to the collapse of charges against the immigrants and a federal investigation into possible perjury by the officers. The release of the footage has intensified scrutiny on the federal government’s handling of the situation and their alleged delayed review of critical evidence.
Read More
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from journalist Priscilla Villarreal, who was arrested for asking a police officer to confirm information regarding a fatal accident and a suicide. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply dissented, arguing that Villarreal’s arrest for performing routine journalistic duties violated her First Amendment rights and that the doctrine of qualified immunity improperly shields the officials involved. Despite a prior Supreme Court instruction to reconsider the case in light of new precedent, the lower court again ruled in favor of the officials, leaving Villarreal without a remedy. This decision highlights concerns about the application of qualified immunity in cases involving free speech and journalistic inquiry.
Read More
Federal authorities have opened a criminal investigation into two immigration officers who allegedly lied under oath regarding the shooting of a Venezuelan man in Minneapolis. Video evidence reportedly contradicts the officers’ sworn testimony, leading to the launch of a joint probe with the Justice Department. As a result, all charges against the two Venezuelan men involved have been dropped, and the officers remain on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. This development follows other recent incidents where federal immigration agents’ accounts have been questioned by video evidence and eyewitness testimony.
Read More
Following Renee Good’s death, Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley are spearheading efforts to eliminate qualified immunity for federal law enforcement. They have updated the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act,” originally introduced five years prior, to allow victims to sue federal authorities for civil rights violations. This revised bill, targeting the 2026 legislative session, would remove the qualified immunity defense in such lawsuits. Senator Markey emphasized the urgency of the matter, citing concerns about impunity in cases involving federal agents.
Read More
Legal experts and officials refuted Vice President Vance’s claim that federal immigration agent Jonathan Ross had “absolute immunity” after fatally shooting Renee Good, emphasizing that no such legal precedent exists. Despite footage showing conflicting instructions given to Good and her car moving just before the shooting, Vance, along with other administration figures, blamed Good and blocked state investigations. Experts like Robert Bennett and Mary Moriarty confirmed ICE agents are not protected by absolute immunity, and constitutional law expert Michael J.Z. Mannheimer stated that state prosecutors can pursue charges against federal officials. The statements were met with criticism, with some calling the comments dangerous and expressing concerns about a shift toward a police state.
Read More
Swalwell, Goldman to offer bill stripping ICE agents of qualified immunity. This is a move that’s sparking a lot of discussion, and for good reason. The proposal, known as the ICE OUT Act, aims to remove the legal protection known as “qualified immunity” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Essentially, this means ICE agents could be held personally liable in civil lawsuits if they violate someone’s constitutional rights. The context for this is particularly relevant, especially considering recent events like the shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good, which has reignited the debate around ICE’s tactics and accountability.
The core of the issue, and what’s driving the calls for this bill, is a growing sense that qualified immunity shields law enforcement, including ICE, from facing the consequences of their actions.… Continue reading
The Trump administration is taking legal action to prevent California from enforcing a new law that restricts federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks while on duty. This legislation, spurred by concerns over masked immigration agents, was enacted following a series of immigration raids. The law aims to hold officers accountable by removing “qualified immunity” if they conceal their faces, exposing them to potential lawsuits and penalties. While the administration argues that the law endangers officers, the case raises complex legal questions and has created divisions within law enforcement, highlighting a clash between state regulations and federal authority.
Read More
Last week in south Portland, federal immigration enforcement agents reportedly interfered with emergency personnel rescuing an injured protester. According to Willamette Week, agents delayed an ambulance exiting an ICE facility with the injured protester, requesting to ride along despite lacking arrest paperwork. The agents allegedly blocked the ambulance’s exit, behaving aggressively and threatening the driver with arrest and violence, even as the emergency crew attempted to de-escalate the situation. One agent is reported to have threatened to “shoot” the driver.
Read More
Bill from Michigan’s Thanedar would end qualified immunity for ICE agents, and it’s a move that sparks some interesting thoughts. It seems like a pretty straightforward concept: if you’re an agent of the law, and you’re doing something that harms someone, you should be held accountable. No special pass, no “qualified immunity” shielding you from the consequences of your actions. That’s the core of the bill.
It’s important to remember that this isn’t just about ICE agents. The sentiment expressed suggests a broader perspective: that qualified immunity shouldn’t protect *anyone* in a position of authority, be it a cop, a federal agent, or anyone else who wields power.… Continue reading
Following the death of Ryan Smith, his mother Rose Johnson’s excessive force lawsuit against a Seattle police officer has been cleared to move forward by a federal judge. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the officer’s claim of qualified immunity, allowing the case to proceed with a tentative trial date set for September 15. The lawsuit alleges the officer’s “willful and reckless” conduct violated Smith’s constitutional rights, particularly given the officer’s history of involvement in multiple fatal shootings. The ruling challenges the defense of qualified immunity, which often shields officers from civil rights claims.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood
Swalwell, Goldman Bill Targets ICE Agents’ Qualified Immunity
Swalwell, Goldman to offer bill stripping ICE agents of qualified immunity. This is a move that’s sparking a lot of discussion, and for good reason. The proposal, known as the ICE OUT Act, aims to remove the legal protection known as “qualified immunity” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Essentially, this means ICE agents could be held personally liable in civil lawsuits if they violate someone’s constitutional rights. The context for this is particularly relevant, especially considering recent events like the shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good, which has reignited the debate around ICE’s tactics and accountability.
The core of the issue, and what’s driving the calls for this bill, is a growing sense that qualified immunity shields law enforcement, including ICE, from facing the consequences of their actions.… Continue reading