The Lawfare Podcast

Episode: Lawfare Daily: The Legal Fallout After a Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
Date: January 9, 2026
Host: Anna Bauer (Senior Editor)
Guests: Eric Columbus (Senior Editor), Mike Feinberg (Senior Editor, former FBI official)

Overview

This episode examines the legal, procedural, and political fallout of a fatal shooting by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, in which 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was killed. The discussion covers the known facts of the incident, the conflicting narratives from officials and video evidence, and the complex legal terrain surrounding federal agent accountability, investigations, civil litigation, and potential prosecution at the federal and state levels.

1. Facts and Competing Narratives

Timestamps: 01:51 – 06:38

What Happened?

• Eric Columbus summarizes the incident:
  • Multiple video accounts show ICE agents approached Renee Good’s car (a Honda Pilot) on a residential Minneapolis street.
  • Agents appear to tell her to move; one tries the door handle.
  • Good backs up, then pulls forward slowly. An ICE agent fires three shots (at least one through the windshield).
  • Her car veers and crashes; she dies shortly after.
  • It's unclear if her car ever made contact with the officer, but shots were fired before any impact.
• Mike Feinberg notes the lack of detailed official release:

  "There has not been a lot of factual information released by the government at this point beyond general statements." (04:48)

Official Statements vs. Video Evidence

• Anna Bauer: Official claims (including DHS/President) state Good “intentionally tried to run over officers” and term it “domestic terrorism,” which conflicts with video evidence showing she drove at low speed and the use of force appears preemptive (05:39).
• Mike Feinberg:

  "This is pretty out of the ordinary...for it to come not only from the agency head, but also from the President of the United States or the Vice President is extremely out of the ordinary for historical practice." (06:38)

  • Stresses deviation from historical “no comment during open investigation” policy, now common for the current administration.

2. Use of Force Policies and Legal Standards

Timestamps: 09:21 – 15:06

Federal Use of Force Policy

• Mike Feinberg:
  • There's a hesitancy among law enforcement to judge if a use of force was “in policy” due to the subjective nature of “reasonable belief” of the officer.
  • Key legal standards come from Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner:
    • Force must be “objectively reasonable” — meaning the officer has probable cause the subject posed an imminent deadly threat.
  • Variations exist between agencies; moving vehicle situations especially complex.
    • Feinberg’s blunt take:

    "Based on the videos I saw yesterday, I do not think if the DOJ deadly force policy was in play, that this would be considered what law enforcement officers refer to as a ‘good shoot’." (13:41)

3. State vs. Federal Prosecution and Immunity

Timestamps: 15:06 – 24:38

State Authority and the Removal Statute

• Eric Columbus:
  • States can prosecute federal agents, but agents are generally immune if they acted “objectively reasonably and in carrying out their duties.”
  • The federal officer removal statute lets officers move a case from state to federal court if they present a “colorable defense” of immunity.
  • Example: Ruby Ridge 1992—an FBI agent’s state prosecution was moved to federal court; ultimate dismissal depended on whether actions were “objectively reasonable.”
  • Quote:

    "This statute goes back actually to the War of 1812...that federal courts are more likely to be on the lookout for the rights of federal officers against possibly hostile state prosecutors." (16:27)

  • Even if removed, agent would be tried under state law—no presidential pardon possible.

Nuances of Minnesota Law

• Local law and justification standards differ and would govern in any state prosecution (23:47).

4. Investigative Jurisdiction and FBI Role

Timestamps: 24:38 – 32:42

Who Investigates?

• FBI is investigating, but for what?

  • Feinberg:

    "People should not assume, unless we are explicitly told differently...that the investigation going on now has the ICE agent as the subject." (26:01)

  • The FBI might be investigating a possible assault on a federal officer (the ICE agent) rather than the officer’s conduct.

• Why aren't state authorities getting information?

  • Normal: FBI rarely shares details during an ongoing investigation.
  • Not normal: public statements by leadership, or leaks aligning with political advantage.

Parallel Investigations

• Feinberg:
  • “Parallel” federal-state investigations are rare except where both have a clear stake; usually, one agency leads and may embed other agency personnel.

Minnesota’s Role and Limitations

• Eric Columbus:

  "Minnesota has basically boosted its own criminal investigation capacities in cases such as this as a result of the investigation of George Floyd." (29:03)

  • The real-world impact of this increased state capacity is yet to be seen.
  • Federal rulings/law limit state prosecution of federal agents.

5. Investigation Scenarios and Legal Fallout

Timestamps: 32:42 – 37:00

FBI’s Focus

• Mike Feinberg:
  • The FBI might focus on the narrative that Good was assaulting a federal officer, which would bolster the officer’s defense if he believed he was in danger.
  • The decision whether the officer’s fear was reasonable depends in part on proving an assault was attempted by the driver.

Civil Litigation and Qualified Immunity

• Anna Bauer:
  • Suing a federal officer is often blocked by robust qualified immunity doctrine.
• Mike Feinberg:
  • Officers carry liability insurance, have union/organizational support, and rarely handle litigation unaided.
  • Quote:

    "There is a machine that will be put in motion now that has done this before, even if the individual officer has never been involved." (39:39)

6. Video Evidence, Body Cameras, and Transparency

Timestamps: 40:11 – 43:27

• Anna Bauer: Actual policies on ICE agent bodycams could affect how much footage comes out.
• Mike Feinberg:
  • Federal bodycam usage is new and inconsistent; details on requirements and policy implementation could determine what is released.

  • "It is a fairly new development only since the murder of George Floyd that federal officers are wearing body worn cameras at all." (41:38)

  • Historically, agencies rush to exonerating tape release; current administration unpredictable.

7. Notable Quotes and Moments

• Anna Bauer (on federal/state forums):

  "Just because a case is removed to federal court, the charges stay the same...that still means that there's no opportunity for a pardon." (22:32)

• Mike Feinberg (on historical deviation):

  "Is this shocking and surprising in the overarching history of law enforcement in the United States? Absolutely. Is it shocking and surprising in ... the past 12 months? Not at all." (09:04)

• Eric Columbus (on standard for use of force):

  "Federal agents are immune from state prosecution if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out their duties." (01:06 and repeated at 15:46)

8. What We Don’t Know (Yet)

Timestamps: 40:11 – 43:27

• Complete release of all available video and bodycam footage.
• Details of the actual operation and ICE protocol for this situation.
• Whether state or federal charges will be brought, and against whom.
• Impact of policy differences between agencies on investigation outcome.
• Unfolding of state vs. federal investigative cooperation/competition.

Conclusion

This episode navigates the tangled legal and ethical issues arising from the Minneapolis ICE shooting. The discussion highlights conflicting facts, political pressure and public narratives, complexities of federal-state jurisdiction, standards for officer conduct, barriers to prosecution and civil liability, and the practical realities—both in evidence-gathering and officer support—facing all sides moving forward. The Lawfare team stresses how the case will likely hinge on decisions about reasonable threat perception, jurisdictional boundaries, and the evolving norms governing law enforcement transparency and oversight.