Vice President JD Vance has provoked a fierce legal backlash after claiming a federal immigration officer who shot and killed a Minnesota woman is protected by 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution. Top constitutional scholars and former prosecutors have ridiculed the assertion as baseless and contrary to established US law.
The Fatal Incident and Official Response
The controversy stems from the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old US citizen and poet, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross on Wednesday, January 7, 2026. Ms Good, who was not the target of the ICE operation, was shot three times as she attempted to drive her SUV away from the scene.
The shooting has triggered mass protests across the United States, fuelled by official claims that Ross acted in self-defence and by reports that state detectives are being blocked from investigating. In a striking intervention, Vice President Vance insisted that any attempt by Minnesota prosecutors to bring a case would be futile.
'The precedent here is very simple,' Vance stated. 'You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action – that's a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job.' He added, 'I've never seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by a judge.'
Legal Experts Unanimously Reject Vance's Assertion
Prominent legal authorities were quick to dismantle the Vice President's argument. Timothy Sini, a former federal prosecutor for New York, told CNN News: 'Officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law.'
Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University, was even more blunt: 'The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous.'
While the US legal system does grant federal agents a degree of immunity from state prosecutions, it is far from the blanket cover suggested by Vance. This qualified immunity only applies when an agent's actions are permitted under federal law and are deemed 'necessary and proper'. Any attempt by Minnesota to charge Ross would spark a complex court battle over whether his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and within his official duties.
Historical Precedents Undermine White House Position
History provides clear examples contradicting Vance's claim. In 1992, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi was charged with involuntary manslaughter after accidentally killing Vicki Weaver, the unarmed wife of white separatist Randy Weaver, during a siege. The federal government claimed immunity for Horiuchi, but a federal court ruled he could be prosecuted, finding it unclear if he had 'acted in an objectively reasonable manner'.
Other successful prosecutions include a postal worker convicted in 1989 for fatally running over a cyclist while on duty. Experts stress that immunity from criminal prosecution is exceptionally rare. Only the President has been argued to possess such protection, and only in specific, constitutionally-defined circumstances—a principle established after Donald Trump's own legal battles and later refined by the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, immunity is a determination for the courts, not a declaration by politicians. As the legal experts emphasise, no federal agent is automatically shielded from criminal liability by law, a fact that renders Vance's confident pronouncement legally hollow and politically explosive.
