A disturbing video circulating online depicts a fatal shooting in Minneapolis, raising serious questions about the actions of federal law enforcement. The footage shows approximately six individuals in military-style attire, appearing to be federal immigration officers deployed to Minnesota by President Donald Trump, forcibly detaining a man. They wrestle him to the ground, repeatedly strike him, and then one officer appears to discharge a firearm multiple times, continuing even after the man is motionless.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed the man’s death in a statement released on social media, stating the victim’s identity has not yet been released.
A police investigation is underway, and any arrests or prosecutions will await its findings. The video provides no context regarding events preceding the altercation, leaving unclear whether the man was engaged in any criminal or violent activity. However, the available evidence is deeply concerning; while a justification for the initial shot might be conceivable, continuing to fire into a man already lying prone seems indefensible.
Concerns are amplified by the recent handling of another federal shooting. Following the death of Renee Good earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly halted an investigation into the officer involved and, according to sources, initiated a criminal investigation into Good herself.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) expressed outrage, calling for President Trump to “Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.” State prosecutors are also considering potential charges against the officers involved in both incidents.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has historically made it difficult to sue federal law enforcement for misconduct. But can federal officers be prosecuted in state court for violating state laws?
Historically, federal officials enjoyed some protection from state prosecution while performing their duties. The 1890 case In re Neagle established that a deputy U.S. marshal who fatally shot a man while protecting a Supreme Court justice could not be charged with murder in state court.
However, last June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Martin v. United States, clarifying that Neagle’s protection isn’t absolute. The ruling, while somewhat ambiguous, suggests federal officers are only shielded from state law if their actions were “necessary and proper” in fulfilling their federal responsibilities.
Therefore, any prosecution of the officers involved in the Minneapolis shooting would hinge on whether courts determine the shooting was a “necessary and proper” exercise of their official duties.
A further complication arises from a federal law allowing state criminal cases against federal officers to be moved to federal court. This doesn’t prevent state charges, but it ensures that questions regarding the applicability of Neagle would be decided by federal courts, which are increasingly conservative.
Cases originating in Minnesota would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a court with 10 of 11 active judges appointed by Republicans. Any decision could then be appealed to the Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.
In short, while Minnesota prosecutors may be able to file charges, their success is far from guaranteed.
When are federal officers immune from prosecution in state court?
The Neagle case stems from a remarkably dramatic set of circumstances. David Terry, a lawyer and former California chief justice, had a prior professional conflict with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field. At the time, Supreme Court justices were required to “ride circuit,” hearing cases outside of Washington, D.C. Field was presiding over a dispute involving Terry’s wife and a U.S. senator’s estate.
During the court proceeding, Terry physically assaulted a U.S. marshal, brandished a Bowie knife, and was jailed for contempt. After his release, Terry and his wife continued to threaten Field’s life, prompting the Attorney General to assign Deputy Marshal David Neagle as Field’s bodyguard.
Terry then attacked Field while he was traveling by train, and Neagle fatally shot Terry.
Given these facts—a direct attack on a Supreme Court justice—the Court’s ruling that California could not prosecute Neagle is unsurprising. He was acting within the scope of his duties as Field’s federally appointed protector.
However, 135 years later, the Court revisited the issue in Martin. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, focused on language in the Neagle opinion suggesting its scope might be limited. Neagle, Gorsuch wrote, was concerned with preventing California from obstructing federal law by prosecuting a marshal for an action “he was authorized to do by the law of the United States.” Protecting Field was something “it was [Neagle’s] duty to do,” and in shooting Terry, Neagle “did no more than what was necessary and proper.”
Thus, Gorsuch distilled a rule from Neagle: federal officials are only protected from state law when their actions were “necessary and proper” in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.
Following Martin, Minnesota may have grounds to prosecute the officers involved in the recent shootings. Generally, federal law enforcement officers are not authorized to shoot individuals without legal justification. If the shooting was legally unjustified, federal courts may conclude the officer’s actions were not “necessary and proper.”
However, Martin is a recent decision, and its rule is open to interpretation. Any prosecution of federal immigration officers would inevitably be politically charged, raising questions about the impartiality of the judges involved.
Ultimately, the legal landscape surrounding federal officer prosecution remains unclear. Whether charges against these officers will succeed—even if a state prosecutor can convince a jury—remains uncertain.
