(MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA) — Vice President JD Vance said at a White House press conference on Thursday that the ICE officer who shot and killed Renee Good was shielded from state prosecution by “absolute immunity,” remarks that multiple legal experts and reports described as not legally accurate.
“You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action — that’s a federal issue. He is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job,”
Vance said, after he was asked why Minnesota investigators were being cut out of the federal probe.
The killing of Good, a Minneapolis poet and mother, has set off a fast-moving clash between federal and state officials over who gets to investigate and whether the ICE officer can face state charges.
Vance also attacked Minnesota officials as he defended the agent’s actions. He said it would be “preposterous” for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and “a bunch of radicals” to “make this guy’s life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do.”
He went further, casting the state’s role in stark terms.
“The unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official can now actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity. I’ve never seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by a judge.”
Vance said.
Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on Wednesday, the reporting said.
Multiple legal experts and reports said Vance’s “absolute immunity” framing does not match how immunity for federal officers works in state criminal cases, and that the ICE officer does not have absolute immunity from charges.
Those accounts pointed instead to a narrower defense sometimes invoked by federal officers, known as “Supremacy Clause immunity,” when a federal official is acting within lawful federal duties and the conduct is “necessary and proper.”
Even then, the reporting said, the protection is not “absolute immunity,” and it is not automatically available just because an officer is a federal employee.
The State Democracy Research Initiative was cited as explaining that Supremacy Clause immunity applies only when federal officials are “reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties.”
When officials act beyond their authority or unlawfully, the same explanation said, state prosecutions can proceed.
The justification for the shooting has not yet been evaluated in court, the reporting said, and no court has granted the agent immunity at this stage.
That legal posture, as described in the reporting, makes any claim of immunity premature because it depends on how a court assesses what happened and whether the officer acted within lawful authority.
🔔 Track which agency investigates and which prosecutes; note evolving timelines, filings, and official updates to avoid conflating federal and state roles in the case.
Vance, in separate comments the same day, defended the agent by citing an earlier 2025 incident involving the same agent.
In that episode, Vance said, the agent was dragged by a car for more than 100 yards, required over 30 stitches, and suffered “bad injuries to his leg.”
“So you think maybe he’s a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile?”
Vance said.
He also described the shooting in blunt terms. Vance characterized it as “a tragedy of her own making,” asserting that the victim tried to ram the agent with a car.
Local video evidence and some Minnesota officials dispute that description, the reporting said.
The competing accounts have placed the Minnesota investigation and the federal probe on a collision course, with Vance’s comments underscoring the administration’s view that the case belongs in federal hands.
Vance’s remarks also sharpened the political stakes in Minnesota, where Good’s killing has become a focal point for arguments about immigration enforcement and accountability for federal law enforcement.
The reporting described Vance’s position as tying the officer’s actions to a federal mission and suggesting that state prosecutors should be blocked from bringing charges.
Legal experts and reports cited in the coverage said that even if an officer raises Supremacy Clause immunity, a court would still have to assess whether the conduct fell within lawful federal duties.
They said the defense hinges on whether actions were “necessary and proper,” rather than on a blanket claim of absolute immunity for any federal officer involved in enforcement activity.
The debate is playing out as state and federal authorities examine the circumstances of the fatal shooting, with the victim identified as Renee Good and the shooter described as an ICE officer.
Vance’s language at the lectern focused on the officer’s status as a federal law enforcement official and the administration’s view of federal primacy in the case.
In the same exchange, he framed the involvement of Minnesota officials as an effort to target an officer for doing what he was “asked to do,” and he argued a judge would reject the idea of state prosecution.
The reporting, however, highlighted that the relevant immunity doctrine, as cited by legal experts, is conditional rather than automatic.
That conditional nature, as described by the State Democracy Research Initiative’s explanation, turns on whether the officer was “reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties.”
Because the shooting’s justification has not been tested in court, the legal fight over any immunity defense has not yet reached a stage where a judge has ruled on it, the reporting said.
The dispute over what happened in Minneapolis has also centered on Vance’s claim that Good tried to ram the agent with a car.
That description was challenged by local video evidence and by some Minnesota officials, the reporting said, widening the gap between the vice president’s account and local responses.
Vance’s mention of the 2025 incident involving the same agent added another layer, portraying the officer as someone who had previously suffered serious injuries after being dragged “for more than 100 yards” and needing “over 30 stitches.”
Those details, Vance suggested, might affect how the agent reacted in the encounter that ended with Good’s death.
The case has now become a test of how far state authorities can go when a federal officer is involved in a killing, and what legal defenses may be raised.
Vance’s comments placed “absolute immunity” at the center of that argument, even as legal experts and reports cited in the coverage said the doctrine that may be available is Supremacy Clause immunity, not a blanket protection from charges.
No court has granted the agent immunity at this stage, the reporting said, leaving the question to be fought over through the legal process rather than settled by political declaration.
Vice President JD Vance defended an ICE officer involved in the fatal shooting of Renee Good, claiming the agent holds absolute immunity. However, legal experts argue this framing is inaccurate, noting that immunity for federal officers is conditional and subject to judicial review. The incident has caused a significant rift between federal administration views and Minnesota state investigators regarding prosecution and evidence.
