When Justice Looks Away
On January 7, 2026, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old American citizen, on a Minneapolis street. The shooting was captured on video. Within days, the Department of Justice announced it would not investigate whether Ross violated Good’s civil rights.
Instead, the DOJ launched investigations into Good’s widow, Minnesota’s governor, and the Minneapolis mayor.
This isn’t justice—it’s impunity. And the Supreme Court’s recent decisions helped make it possible.
What Happened to Renee Good
The facts are largely undisputed because video captured the incident. Good was in her car when ICE agents approached during what the administration called “the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out”—a deployment of 2,000 agents to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area that began January 6.
Agent Ross approached Good’s vehicle on foot. As Good began driving away—turning away from Ross—he fired three shots: one through the windshield, then two through the open driver’s side window. Good died from her injuries.
Ross claimed he was “fearing for his life.” Whether Good’s vehicle struck him is disputed by analysts who reviewed the footage.
This was the ninth time ICE agents had opened fire on people since September 2025. Four other people have been killed during federal deportation operations.
The DOJ’s Response: Investigate the Victim, Not the Agent
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the Justice Department’s position on Fox News: the Civil Rights Division would not investigate the shooting. His reasoning? “What happened has been reviewed by millions of Americans because it was recorded. We investigate when it’s appropriate. That is not the case here.”
The message is clear: watching a federal agent kill a citizen on video is sufficient “investigation.” No grand jury, no independent review, no accountability.
But the DOJ didn’t stop there. Instead of investigating Ross, the department:
- Opened an investigation into Renee Good’s widow, Becca Good, examining her “possible ties to activist groups”
- Served grand jury subpoenas to Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging they encouraged “criminals to go out on the street and impede ICE”
- Ordered career prosecutors not to investigate the shooting itself
The result? At least a dozen career attorneys resigned in protest—six from the Civil Rights Division and six from the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Governor Walz called it “political theater,” noting: “This Justice Department investigation, sparked by calls for accountability in the face of violence, chaos, and the killing of Renee Good, does not seek justice.”
The Supreme Court’s Role in Federal Impunity
How did we get here? How can a federal agent kill an American citizen on camera and face no investigation while the victim’s family is targeted instead?
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have created the legal architecture for precisely this kind of impunity.
Presidential Immunity and Executive Branch Protection
In Trump v. United States (July 2024), the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for actions involving their “exclusive powers”—including control over the executive branch and federal law enforcement.
Read more: Presidential Immunity: The Supreme Court’s Gift to Autocracy
The majority held that Trump enjoyed “absolute immunity” for his “discussions with Department of Justice officials” because these involved “his exclusive powers over federal law enforcement.”
The implications extend beyond the president himself. If a president has absolute immunity for directing federal law enforcement, what accountability exists for the agents carrying out those directives? The Court’s ruling signals that federal law enforcement operations—especially those central to presidential priorities like immigration enforcement—occupy a protected sphere where normal accountability mechanisms don’t apply.
Vice President JD Vance made this connection explicit, claiming the ICE agent who killed Good is “protected by absolute immunity” because “he was doing his job.” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller echoed: “You have immunity to perform your duties.”
Qualified Immunity: The Shield That Never Breaks
Even before Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court had spent decades building a nearly impenetrable shield around law enforcement: qualified immunity.
Under this doctrine, officers can only be held liable if they violate “clearly established law”—meaning a prior case with nearly identical facts must exist. As Justice Sotomayor has noted, qualified immunity has become “an absolute shield” that allows police brutality to “go unpunished.”
Legal experts correctly note that Vance’s “absolute immunity” claim is legally wrong—federal agents can be prosecuted for willfully depriving individuals of civil rights. But qualified immunity makes civil accountability nearly impossible, and without DOJ willingness to pursue criminal cases, there’s no practical path to justice.
Bivens: The Door the Court Slammed Shut
What about suing federal agents directly? In theory, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971) allows citizens to sue federal officials who violate their constitutional rights.
In practice, the Supreme Court has spent the last decade systematically closing this door. In Egbert v. Boule (2022), the Court made clear that it will no longer recognize new contexts for Bivens claims—effectively immunizing federal agents from civil suits in most circumstances.
As the American Immigration Council explains, the Good family’s options are limited: they could sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (which pays damages from government funds, not the agent’s), but suing Ross individually “is effectively impossible.”
The Shadow Docket Connection
The Court’s willingness to use emergency procedures without full briefing—the “shadow docket”—also plays a role. Throughout the first Trump administration, the Court repeatedly granted emergency relief to allow controversial immigration policies to proceed immediately, establishing a pattern of deference to executive immigration enforcement.
Read more: The Shadow Docket and Presidential Immunity: How Emergency Orders Enable Autocracy
This pattern continues. The DOJ is already appealing court orders that restrict ICE responses to the Minneapolis protests, seeking emergency relief to continue aggressive enforcement despite the shooting and its aftermath.
The Inversion of Justice
Consider what the DOJ’s response reveals about priorities:
| What’s Being Investigated | What’s Not Being Investigated |
|---|---|
| The victim’s widow | The agent who killed her |
| Her “ties to activist groups” | Whether the shooting was justified |
| The governor who called for accountability | The department that refused to investigate |
| The mayor who criticized ICE | The pattern of ICE shootings since September |
This isn’t law enforcement—it’s retaliation. The message to anyone who might question federal agents is clear: we won’t investigate them, but we will investigate you.
State Responses: Filling the Federal Void
With federal accountability impossible, states are attempting to fill the gap:
California, New York, and Maryland are racing to pass legislation allowing residents to sue federal agents who violate constitutional rights. These bills would extend protections that already exist against state and local officers (under Section 1983) to cover federal officers.
Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation to strip ICE officers of qualified immunity, establishing “an objective test” where agents acting “completely outside of your duties and responsibilities” lose immunity protections.
Colorado has already passed legislation allowing damage actions against officers who violate state constitutional rights, with qualified immunity explicitly unavailable as a defense.
But these state-level responses can only do so much. Federal agents operate under federal authority, and the Supreme Court has made clear that federal accountability is nearly impossible.
The Pattern of Court-Enabled Impunity
The Good case isn’t an isolated incident—it’s the predictable result of decades of Supreme Court decisions:
- Qualified immunity makes civil suits against officers nearly impossible
- Bivens restrictions close the door on suing federal agents directly
- Presidential immunity shields executive branch operations from accountability
- Shadow docket deference allows aggressive enforcement to proceed without full judicial review
Each decision builds on the others, creating a system where federal agents can kill American citizens with effectively no legal consequences—as long as the administration chooses not to investigate itself.
What This Means for Democracy
The DOJ’s handling of the Good case reveals something fundamental about the current moment: the Supreme Court has created the legal conditions for authoritarian governance.
When federal agents can kill citizens without investigation, when the victims’ families are targeted instead, when governors and mayors face prosecution for calling for accountability—this is what the end of the rule of law looks like.
The Court didn’t directly order the DOJ to abandon its investigation. But through decades of immunity doctrines, Bivens restrictions, and deference to executive enforcement, the Court created a legal landscape where this outcome was not just possible but predictable.
The Need for Comprehensive Reform
Individual cases can’t fix a systemic problem. We need:
Legislation to eliminate qualified immunity for federal law enforcement, creating real accountability for constitutional violations.
Restoration of Bivens or new statutory causes of action allowing citizens to sue federal agents who violate their rights.
Constraints on presidential immunity to ensure that “official acts” don’t include ordering or enabling unconstitutional violence.
Supreme Court reform to address the ideological capture that produced these immunity doctrines in the first place.
Read more: Comprehensive Reform Is Needed
Conclusion: Impunity Is a Choice
Renee Good was an American citizen. She was killed by a federal agent on video. Her family cannot sue the agent. The DOJ will not investigate. Instead, her widow is under investigation.
This is not an accident or an oversight. It’s the logical endpoint of Supreme Court decisions that have systematically shielded law enforcement from accountability.
The Court made choices: to expand qualified immunity, to restrict Bivens, to grant presidents immunity for controlling federal law enforcement, to defer to executive enforcement on the shadow docket.
Those choices have consequences. Renee Good is dead. Her killer faces no investigation. And the Supreme Court helped make it possible.
Reform isn’t optional—it’s urgent. The Court won’t hold itself accountable. Congress and the American people must act.
For more on how the Supreme Court enables executive overreach, read about presidential immunity, the shadow docket, and the pattern of corruption. For a comprehensive overview, see our main thesis.