Can States Prosecute Federal Agents Who Kill?

The horrific video from Minneapolis shows what appears to be federal immigration officers wrestling a man to the ground, striking him repeatedly, then firing multiple shots—even after he lies motionless. The man is dead, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara. But the killing has exposed a deeper question that goes to the heart of American federalism: When federal agents break state law, who has the power to hold them accountable?

This isn't just another case of police violence. It's a 135-year-old constitutional puzzle playing out in real time, with potentially explosive implications for how justice works in America.

The Federal Shield Weakens

For more than a century, federal agents enjoyed broad protection from state prosecution thanks to a Supreme Court case called In re Neagle (1890). The precedent essentially said that federal officers acting within their official duties couldn't be charged in state courts, even if they violated state law.

But last June, the Supreme Court's decision in Martin v. United States significantly narrowed that protection. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that federal officials are only shielded when their actions "were 'necessary and proper' in the discharge of their federal responsibilities."

The new standard is deliberately vague, but it opens the door for state prosecutors to charge federal agents—if they can prove the actions weren't justified by official duties.

Minnesota's Fury, Trump's Shield

Minnesota officials are understandably livid. This is the second killing by federal officers in just weeks. Earlier this month, after federal agents killed Renee Good, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly didn't just shut down the investigation into her killer—he ordered a criminal investigation into Good herself.

Governor Tim Walz has demanded Trump "Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now." State prosecutors are exploring whether they can bring charges against the officers responsible for both killings.

But the Trump administration has shown zero interest in genuine accountability. The pattern is clear: protect the agents, investigate the victims.

The Conservative Court Gauntlet

Even if Minnesota prosecutors file charges, they face a daunting legal obstacle course. Federal law allows cases against federal officers to be moved from state to federal court. That means Minneapolis's case would likely end up before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit—where 10 of 11 active judges were appointed by Republicans.

From there, it could reach the Supreme Court, where Republicans hold six of nine seats. The same conservative majority that has made it nearly impossible for private citizens to sue federal law enforcement will now decide whether states can prosecute them.

The question becomes: Will these judges approach the case as impartial jurists applying constitutional law, or as partisans protecting a Republican administration's immigration enforcement?

The Precedent That Started It All

The original Neagle case involved genuinely wild circumstances. Deputy Marshal David Neagle was assigned to protect Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field from a vengeful former California chief justice named David Terry. When Terry physically attacked Field on a train, Neagle shot and killed him.

Given those facts—a physical assault on a sitting Supreme Court justice—it's hardly surprising the Court ruled California couldn't prosecute Neagle. He was literally doing his federally assigned job of protecting a justice.

But today's cases are far murkier. Federal immigration officers aren't supposed to shoot people without justification, regardless of their official duties. The question is whether conservative federal judges will see it that way.