The Lawfare Podcast

Episode: Lawfare Daily: Can Minnesota Prosecute ICE Agent Jonathan Ross?
Air Date: January 22, 2026
Host: Anna Bauer (Lawfare Senior Editor)
Guests:

• Carolyn Shapiro (Founder and Co-Director, Chicago Kent College of Law’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States)
• Brynna Godar (Staff Attorney, State Democracy Research Initiative, University of Wisconsin Law School)

Overview

This episode tackles the legal question of whether the State of Minnesota can prosecute Jonathan Ross, an ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Nicole Goode in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. Host Anna Bauer is joined by legal scholars Carolyn Shapiro and Brynna Godar, who analyze constitutional doctrine, state law, and high-profile claims of “absolute immunity” reportedly made by federal officials. Together, they dispel myths about state versus federal jurisdiction, discuss possible defenses and obstacles to prosecution, and contemplate how the ongoing debate over federal immunity might intersect with Supreme Court doctrine in the Trump era.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. State Jurisdiction Over Federal Officers (04:29–07:16)

• States’ Rights to Prosecute: Both guests explain that Minnesota has clear jurisdiction to investigate and potentially prosecute Ross, despite claims by some federal officials (e.g., Stephen Miller) that ICE agents have absolute immunity.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “Yes, the state undoubtedly has jurisdiction here to investigate and decide whether to bring criminal charges. These claims that we're seeing of absolute immunity are just incorrect and are counter to more than a century of these types of cases being brought by states.” (04:29)
• Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gamble reiterates that states and the federal government are “separate sovereigns” with overlapping but independent interests—even over the same incident.
  • Brynna Godar: “...the court said in this case called Gamble, that [double jeopardy] doesn't apply in the context of a state going first and then the federal government prosecuting, or the other way around… It’s just not susceptible to double jeopardy because they are separate sovereigns with separate interests.” (05:03)

2. Potential State Charges and Precedent (07:16–11:56)

• Relevant Minnesota Criminal Statutes: The hosts outline charges that Minnesota prosecutors could consider, referencing similarities to charges brought against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, e.g., second-degree murder, manslaughter.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “He [Derek Chauvin] was convicted of second degree murder … and third degree murder. And second degree manslaughter. So those are all immediately obvious potential charges for Jonathan Ross.” (08:21)
• Unique State Laws: There’s a Minnesota law requiring any shooter—including law enforcement—to render aid to injured individuals. Failure to do so could enhance liability.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “Jonathan Ross and his colleagues not only didn't come to [Renee Goode’s] aid, but they prevented others from doing so. Those are crimes in Minnesota.” (10:37)

3. Supremacy Clause Immunity vs. Absolute Immunity (12:00–16:34)

• Clarifying Legal Doctrines:
  • Supremacy Clause Immunity only protects federal officers acting reasonably within their official duties from state prosecution, while absolute immunity (as claimed by some political figures) simply does not exist for federal law enforcement in criminal matters.
  • Brynna Godar: “It only applies when a federal official is actually doing something that is authorized by federal law … if a federal official is overstepping … state prosecutions are actually serving to further federal law and further uphold federal constitutional principles and rights.” (12:40)
• Procedural Uncertainty: There’s ambiguity over whether the immunity question is decided by a judge or jury, and how factual disputes are adjudicated.
  • Brynna Godar: “The test is not fully fleshed out. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in ... in more than a century...” (14:48)

4. Removal to Federal Court (16:34–20:48)

• Inevitable Removal: Any criminal prosecution against Ross would almost certainly be moved to federal court, where state law still applies and state prosecutors remain in charge.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “Undoubtedly, if Ross or any of his fellow officers were charged, that's the first thing they would do—would be to remove it to federal court. That doesn't mean, though, that it becomes a federal case.” (16:34, also replayed at 01:31)
• Presidential Pardon Limitations: Even if tried in federal court, conviction under state law remains outside presidential pardon power.
  • Brynna Godar: “The president only has the ability to pardon convictions for federal crimes... it would still be a conviction for a state law crime. And so the president would not have pardon power there.” (20:48, also at 02:11 and 02:27)

5. Historic and Contemporary Precedents (21:04–23:25)

• Previous Prosecutions: There is precedent for state prosecutions of federal officers, though successful convictions are rare due to both the immunity defense and the inherent challenges in trying law enforcement.
  • Brynna Godar: “...there is a conviction from the 1970s of a border patrol agent who shot and severely injured a man who was running away... But the cases that ultimately lead to conviction are relatively rare…” (21:43)

6. Other Substantive Legal Obstacles (28:17–35:35)

• Use of Deadly Force: Minnesota law permits deadly force when objectively necessary to prevent death or harm. The facts of the incident—especially video evidence—will be critical.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “Ross would probably argue that he was in fear for his life or because he was afraid the car was going to hit him ... But people can go and look at the videos for themselves…” (28:38)
• Role of Federal Policies/Training: Defense may invoke training and federal policies to underscore reasonableness; but those same materials could help the prosecution if the officer acted against best practices (e.g., not shooting at moving vehicles).
  • Brynna Godar: “...if this case is brought, those [training policies] will definitely be pieces of evidence that we see the state pointing to in terms of arguing that this was not a reasonable response.” (34:15)
• Jury Sympathy for Officers: Juries often side with officers citing split-second danger; high-profile cases like Philando Castile’s are discussed as illustrative.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “Juries tend to be sympathetic to law enforcement officials. I think the circumstances of each case are different, of course.” (31:52)

7. Lack of Federal Government Cooperation (35:35–40:23)

• No Federal Investigation: It is highly unusual for the DOJ not to investigate, as highlighted by resignations from DOJ Civil Rights staff who wanted to undertake one.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “That’s, I would say, somewhat shocking to me that there would be no investigation at all in this kind of shooting.” (36:54)
  • Brynna Godar: "Those resignations just underscore just how out of the norm this is. They really highlight that this is not the way that the federal government usually goes about handling these cases." (38:33)
• Effect on State Investigation: The lack of federal inquiry could make it easier for the state, as there is no risk of obstructing a federal process, and certain federal files might be accessible via FOIA.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “Since the federal government says we're not doing anything to investigate Ross, there's nothing to interfere with.” (40:23)

8. The Broader Debate About Immunity and Accountability (40:23–47:06)

• Absolutist Immunity Claims as Rhetoric: Broad claims of immunity by federal officials may be strategic—to discourage accountability and intimidate state authorities.
  • Brynna Godar: “I think it is pretty clear that federal officials are trying to convey to officers that there are not consequences if they violate people's rights here.” (42:18)
• Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Decision: While the Trump-era Supreme Court expanded presidential immunity, the panel doubts the Court would grant blanket immunity to law enforcement officers.
  • Carolyn Shapiro: “I don't see [absolute immunity for line officers] as remotely … I don't think it's even likely.” (43:43)
• Potential for Expanded but Still Limited Immunity: The Court could make Supremacy Clause immunity broader—making prosecutions more difficult—without going all the way to declaring “absolute” immunity.
  • Brynna Godar: “...federal courts could very broadly construe Supremacy Clause immunity in a way that it becomes much closer to absolute immunity without going the full route…” (47:06)
• Federal Pushback Against State Accountability: Recent DOJ threats against Minnesota officials pursuing accountability are seen as part of a strategy to challenge the traditional state role.
  • Brynna Godar: “...federal officials also seem to be perpetuating the idea that states don't have a lawful role here so that they can then suppress state efforts at accountability…” (47:06)

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On State Investigative Power:
  “These claims that we're seeing of absolute immunity are just incorrect and are counter to more than a century of these types of cases being brought by states.”
  — Carolyn Shapiro (04:29)
• Comparing Immunities:
  “[Supremacy Clause Immunity] only applies when a federal official is actually doing something that is authorized by federal law, and [the actions are] necessary and proper in fulfilling their federal duties....”
  — Brynna Godar (12:40)
• On the Supreme Court's Trump Immunity Case:
  “The immunity decision is a dangerous decision and, in my view, profoundly wrong … But it does not require a finding that these officers have absolute immunity.”
  — Carolyn Shapiro (43:43)
• On the Absence of Federal Investigation:
  “That’s, I would say, somewhat shocking to me that there would be no investigation at all in this kind of shooting. And that sends its own message.”
  — Carolyn Shapiro (36:54)
• Sympathy for Federal Officers:
  “Juries tend to be sympathetic to law enforcement officials who make those types of arguments.”
  — Carolyn Shapiro (31:52)
• On Absolutist Rhetoric:
  “Federal officials are trying to convey to officers that there are not consequences if they violate people's rights here. And they're trying to cut out this long-standing role for the states in holding officials accountable if they overstep.”
  — Brynna Godar (42:18)

Important Timestamps

• 04:29 — State jurisdiction and rejection of absolute immunity.
• 08:21–10:35 — Analysis of possible Minnesota criminal charges.
• 12:40 — Distinguishing Supremacy Clause immunity from absolute immunity.
• 16:34/01:31 — Procedural removal to federal court.
• 20:48/02:27 — Presidential pardon powers limited to federal crimes.
• 28:38–31:52 — Key obstacles for prosecution, including justification and jury perceptions.
• 34:15 — Role of policy, training, and Fourth Amendment standards.
• 36:54–38:33 — Shock over federal inaction, and resignations within DOJ.
• 42:18–47:06 — Strategic use of immunity rhetoric and Supreme Court speculation.

Conclusion

The podcast dispels myths around “absolute immunity” and clarifies that Minnesota does have jurisdiction to prosecute ICE Agent Jonathan Ross for the shooting of Renee Nicole Goode. While federal supremacy can immunize officers in narrow circumstances, there is no blanket protection; the specific facts, state laws, and questions of reasonableness will be central. The Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements on immunity are dissected, but the consensus is that—at least for now—the rhetoric of absolute immunity for federal line officers is not supported by law or precedent.

For further info, visit lawfaremedia.org.