Op-Ed | Prosecuting the ICE agent who killed Renee Good

The videos of the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis earlier this month are chilling. They show clearly and convincingly that the agent, Jonathan Ross, killed the young mother without justification or excuse and that he could face a murder charge. It appears almost with certainty that Ross was not in any physical danger as he stood near the front passenger side of Good’s SUV. The car appeared not to strike him. He shot her in the face when she turned the car to the right and began to slowly drive away.

But the killing of Good, after months of savage violence by ICE officials throughout the country against journalists, officials, protesters, and ordinary citizens, activated the Trump mouthpieces to manufacture a narrative that Good was a “domestic terrorist” and that she used her vehicle as a deadly weapon to run over Ross. Ross was hailed as a hero who acted with utmost integrity and professionalism to make American communities safer.

Kristi Noem, head of the Department of Homeland Security, reported that Ross suffered serious internal bleeding from the incident and was taken to a hospital. But there is no independent verification that in fact he was taken to a hospital, of his medical condition at the time, or of any treatment he allegedly received. And based on the emergency services logs and reports, Ross wasn’t even taken to a hospital but to a federal building where it is very likely he and his handlers concocted a false story of the killing.

And given the false narrative that Ross was a hero and Good a villain, it is hardly surprising that President Donald Trump’s Justice Department and FBI have not only refused to investigate the killing but have actively blocked access by Minnesota law enforcement officials to evidence in the federal government’s possession, including videos, statements from agents at the scene, statements from witnesses, and electronic messages and reports.

So, the big question that many legal and nonlegal critics are asking is whether the state of Minnesota, assuming it has collected sufficient evidence to charge Ross with murder, would be able to prosecute him in the face of the federal stonewalling and coverup. The U.S. Constitution’s so-called Supremacy Clause makes the federal government supreme over state governments, and if there is a conflict, the federal government wins. Indeed, according to Vice President JD Vance, given federal supremacy, Ross has absolute immunity for his killing.

But Vance’s assertion is flatly wrong. We know, for example, that Trump himself was prosecuted and convicted in a New York State courtroom for state crimes. And there are several Supreme Court decisions in which federal officials have been prosecuted by states for criminal conduct while engaged in federal activities. And without going into the details of these cases, it is entirely possible, although not without some difficulty and fierce resistance by Trump and his flunkies, that the state of Minnesota will eventually be able to charge Ross with murder, bring him to trial in a state courtroom, and convict him. And Trump could not pardon him for a state conviction.

First, Minnesota will be able to amass solid evidence that Ross behaved unreasonably and without justification when he killed Good. Witnesses who saw the event and took videos of the tragedy are coming forward with their accounts. Second, the fact that the three other ICE agents accompanying Ross never drew their weapons suggests that they did not believe the situation was sufficiently serious to remove their weapons. Third, prior to the killing, Ross engaged in actions that police experts will likely describe as incompatible with proper police procedures. He approached her SUV, spoke to her, recorded her, and then positioned himself near the front of her vehicle as she attempted to move away. His feet were not in the car’s path as she drove forward slowly and turned the wheel although he claimed he feared for his life and braced himself against the vehicle when he fired three shots, killing her.

Assuming the state brings charges, Ross will likely make a motion to have the case removed to federal court. This is commonplace, and not surprising. But once the case is before a federal judge, the preliminary issue the judge will need to decide is whether Ross’s killing of Good was a reasonable and proper exercise of his law enforcement duties. The question is an objective one; it is not whether Ross himself believed he needed to use lethal force to protect himself but in looking at the event objectively, whether it was reasonable for Ross to believe that he needed to kill Good to protect himself, and whether there were alternative ways to handle the situation without using deadly force.

If the judge decides for Ross, she would dismiss the case. If the judge decides against Ross and for the state, Ross’s trial would be held in the federal courtroom, presided by the federal judge, and prosecuted by lawyers from the state of Minnesota. Federal rules of evidence and procedure will be used. Ross will be defended by lawyers of his choice, which may include lawyers from the federal government.

There are also ways that Good’s family can bring a civil tort action against Ross. But I’ll leave that discussion for later.