Vance Declares Officer Protected By Absolute Immunity JD Vance publicly asserted that the ICE officer who shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis enjoys absolute federal immunity, framing the action as a lawful performance of duty and predicting dismissal by the courts[1][2]. He reiterated this stance at a White House event, labeling critics as radicals and emphasizing the officer’s “job” responsibilities[1][2]. The claim has become a focal point of the national debate over federal law‑enforcement protections.

Legal Scholars Refute Absolute Immunity Argument Constitutional‑law experts cited in both reports argue that absolute immunity does not exist for federal officers in use‑of‑force cases, pointing to precedent allowing state prosecutions when evidence warrants[2]. They note that qualified immunity, not absolute, typically shields officers, and courts have sometimes pierced it in egregious incidents[2]. This scholarly disagreement underscores the legal uncertainty surrounding the Minneapolis shooting.

State Investigators Barred From Evidence Access Minnesota prosecutors reported that federal officials prevented local investigators from participating in the Good case, limiting their ability to interview witnesses and review evidence[2]. The Department of Justice indicated the FBI will lead a joint investigation, but the lack of state involvement has fueled accusations of a cover‑up[2]. Both outlets highlight this tension between state and federal authorities.

Civil Suit Faces Qualified Immunity Obstacles Good’s family may file a wrongful‑death lawsuit, yet scholars warn that qualified‑immunity defenses could block recovery unless a court finds the officer’s conduct “egregious” enough to override protection[2]. The potential civil action adds another layer to the legal battle, complementing criminal‑justice proceedings. Ongoing public pressure, including nationwide protests noted by Newsweek, keeps the case in the spotlight[1].