The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three and U.S. citizen, by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis has ignited a national firestorm over the powers and accountability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents under President Donald Trump’s renewed immigration crackdown. The events of January 7, 2026, have not only sparked widespread protests but also cast a harsh spotlight on the legal gray areas and political tensions that define federal immigration enforcement in the United States today.
According to TIME and Axios, Good was shot and killed by Jonathan Ross, an ICE officer with over a decade of experience and a military background, during a protest against the agency. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) swiftly defended Ross, stating that Good had “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism.” Yet, video footage that circulated widely online appeared to contradict this narrative. The clips show Ross standing to the side of Good’s car, her wheels turned away from him, at the moment he fired his weapon. This stark discrepancy between official statements and visible evidence has only deepened public outrage and skepticism.
The shooting has drawn comparisons to a string of similar incidents in recent months, highlighting a surge in ICE arrests and the use of force since Trump returned to the White House. According to The Washington Post, ICE arrests in communities—rather than simply in jails—have spiked, and federal agents have fired at or into civilian vehicles at least 13 times since July 2025. The Wall Street Journal reports that in many of these cases, authorities justified the shootings by claiming cars were used as weapons or that agents’ lives were at risk, even when evidence suggested otherwise.
Legal experts say the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration enforcement, with states possessing only limited authority unless they are specifically deputized. Emmanuel Mauleón, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and an expert in policing and Fourth Amendment rights, explained to TIME, “The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce immigration. State and local law enforcement aren't allowed to engage in immigration enforcement by themselves unless federally deputized.” States can withhold cooperation or resources, but they cannot prevent ICE operations outright.
Jennifer Whitlock, senior policy counsel at the National Immigration Law Center, told TIME that most ICE arrests are made under administrative warrants, which allow detentions without the need for traditional court-issued warrants. However, agents often push the boundaries, justifying arrests without warrants if they believe a person is likely to escape. “We’ve seen so many novel interpretations of DHS authority over the last year,” Whitlock noted. She also highlighted that the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics have led to a dramatic increase in community arrests.
When it comes to the use of force, federal agents operate under the same constitutional standards as local police, governed by the Fourth Amendment. Mauleón explained, “We are all afforded rights under the Constitution that ensure our security against unreasonable searches and seizures. That’s the Fourth Amendment, and so that is the applicable standard for the use of force.” Deadly force is permitted only when there is an imminent risk of serious injury or death, a high bar that courts often interpret with deference to officers’ perceptions—unless, of course, video evidence suggests otherwise.
DHS policy further restricts the use of deadly force, stating it may only be used when there is a “reasonable belief” that a subject poses an “imminent” threat of death or serious injury. The policy explicitly forbids using deadly force solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect, unless there is a significant threat and such force is necessary to prevent escape. Yet, as Mauleón pointed out, “DHS prohibits the kind of behavior that we saw on Wednesday, but it’s not clear how much they’re enforcing their own rules or disciplining officers for deviating from those rules. If you place yourself in front of a vehicle, and then the vehicle begins to move, you can always claim that there was some sort of a risk.”
Michele Garnett McKenzie, executive director of The Advocates for Human Rights, was blunt in her assessment, telling TIME, “In general, use of force has to be a last resort. It has to be proportionate. It should not be as somebody is fleeing ever, especially if they’re a fleeing suspect of a not serious crime, like sitting in a car.” She described Good’s killing as “an extrajudicial state killing.”
The aftermath of Good’s death has revealed glaring differences in how shootings by local police and federal agents are investigated. As Axios points out, a local police shooting typically triggers a multi-agency investigation and the possibility of prosecution, often accompanied by public pressure for reform. In contrast, ICE-involved shootings are handled almost entirely within the federal government, where accountability is much harder to achieve. ICE, created after 9/11, has fewer legal guardrails and has never been subjected to the Department of Justice’s “pattern-or-practice” investigations that have forced reforms in many local police departments.
President Trump’s administration has halted all DOJ investigations into police departments accused of excessive force and is unlikely to launch one into ICE, even as shootings and allegations of abuse rise. Ira Kurzban, a civil rights lawyer and author quoted by Axios, said, “The central question isn’t whether they can prosecute. It’s whether this Justice Department is willing to act like a Justice Department and actually do it.”
The controversy has also exposed deeper issues of racial profiling and overzealous policing. Axios reports a growing number of U.S. citizens—many Latino—being detained by ICE, with some Native American tribes reporting harassment by immigration agents. These trends have only fueled the nationwide “ICE Out For Good” protests and intensified calls for oversight.
On the legal front, both state and federal authorities technically have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute federal agents in cases like Good’s. The FBI has opened a federal inquiry, but Minnesota officials claim the federal government is blocking their access to evidence and hindering their ability to conduct an independent state investigation. Mauleón told TIME, “The State is entitled to investigate, but the federal government here does seem to be trying to hamper the ability of the state to obtain critical evidence.” He added that this legal standoff is unusual: “I think that this is going to be a legally novel case in many different ways, for many different aspects, because of the sort of antagonism between the state and federal agency.”
History offers a sobering reminder of how difficult it is to hold federal agents accountable. The 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, as Axios recalls, led to years of court battles over federal immunity after an FBI sniper fatally shot an unarmed woman. The case was ultimately dropped, underscoring the formidable legal protections federal officers enjoy.
As the nation watches Minnesota’s investigation unfold and protests continue, the case of Renee Nicole Good stands as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over immigration enforcement, federal authority, and the limits of accountability in American law enforcement.
