JD Vance’s claim ICE agent in fatal shooting has ‘absolute immunity’ is ridiculed
Top lawyers have pilloried outlandish White House claims that immigration officer Jonathan Ross has ‘absolute immunity’ against prosecution for killing Minnesota woman Renee Good.
ICE agent Ross fired three shots as Ms Good, a 37-year-old US citizen who was not a target of the operation, tried to drive her SUV away from the scene of an operation on Wednesday.
Mass protests have erupted in cities across the US following fierce criticism of official claims that Ross acted in self-defence and revelations that state detectives are being blocked from investigating the incident.
Now Vice President JD Vance has insisted Ross is completely immune from potential moves by Minnesota prosecutors to open a criminal case against him.
‘The precedent here is very simple. 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.
‘I’ve never seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by a judge.’
Yet several federal officials have been prosecuted for actions while on the job throughout US history, such as an FBI sniper who accidentally killed a murderer’s innocent wife during a siege in 1992.
Lon Horiuchi was charged with involuntary manslaughter over the death of Randy Weaver’s wife Vicki, who was unarmed and carrying her baby.
Numerous experts were quick to say that Vance is completely wrong.
‘Officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law,’ former New York federal prosecutor Timothy Sini told CNN News.
‘The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,’ added Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.
The US legal system does often grant federal agents immunity from state prosecutions – however it is not a blanket cover.
It only applies when the agent’s actions are allowed under federal law and are deemed ‘necessary and proper’.
If Minnesota charged Ross, it would trigger a court battle over whether his actions were within his official duties and objectively reasonable or lawful.
Federal law allows the use of deadly force when an officer has ‘probable cause’ to believe someone is at immediate threat of death or serious injury.
Department of Homeland Security officials appointed by Donald Trump claim Ross fired ‘defensive shots’ at a ‘violent rioter’ who was attempting to run over officers.
Senior Democrats and independent civil rights organisations have said footage of the incident clearly contradicts this account.
In any case, Ross could only be granted immunity upon the decision of a judge – there is no precedent for it to be applied automatically by law.
For example, the federal government claimed immunity for Horiuchi but a federal court ruled he could be charged as it was unclear whether the agent ‘acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out [his] duties’.
The charges were dropped for unrelated reasons, though there are numerous examples of successful prosecutions against federal officials for on-the-job actions, such as a postal worker convicted in 1989 for fatally running over a cyclist.
Some types of federal officials are granted absolute immunity from civil cases, such as judges and lawmakers while engaged in their professional duties.
None have ever been granted absolute immunity from criminal prosecution except in one case: the president, and only in very specific circumstances.
This was established after Donald Trump argued a president has absolute immunity for criminal acts conducted while in office in an attempt to block prosecution for allegedly inciting attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against him last year.
He appealed to the Supreme Court, who ruled in a 6-3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed when ‘exercising core powers enumerated by the constitution’ – though they did not rule on whether Trump’s actions all fell inside or outside of this scope.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.