In the days following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good during an immigration operation in Minneapolis, her family signalled that they may pursue a civil case. The intention is clear. The path forward, however, is anything but simple.
Under U.S. law, holding federal immigration officers legally accountable is notoriously difficult. The system is designed with layers of protection that sharply limit when, how, and against whom a lawsuit can proceed.
A lawsuit against the government, not the officer
Individuals generally cannot sue federal agents personally for actions taken on the job. Instead, the law points aggrieved families toward the federal government itself. That route runs through a little-known statute enacted in 1946—the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The FTCA is a narrow exception to sovereign immunity, the doctrine that ordinarily shields the U.S. government from being sued. It allows people—citizens and non-citizens alike—to seek compensation when a federal employee causes injury or death while performing official duties.
In theory, this opens the door for wrongful death claims involving immigration enforcement. In practice, it comes with heavy constraints.
Built-in limits on accountability
FTCA cases are civil claims only. Punitive damages are off the table. There is no jury trial. Compensation is governed by state law caps, often resulting in far lower awards than those seen in ordinary civil suits.
Even more significantly, the government cannot be held liable for actions rooted in discretion. If officials can show that an agent made a judgment call rather than violating a mandatory rule, the claim may collapse. Courts also frequently defer to arguments that the agent’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances—particularly where self-defense is asserted.
These hurdles have led many legal experts to describe the FTCA as a blunt and often inadequate tool for addressing misconduct by federal officers.
Personal lawsuits against agents: nearly impossible
Suing an ICE agent individually is even harder.
There is a narrow category of constitutional claims—known as Bivens actions—that allow damages suits against federal officials in their personal capacity. The concept dates back to a 1971 Supreme Court decision involving an unlawful search.
But over time, courts have steadily confined this remedy. Recent rulings have effectively shut the door on such claims in the context of immigration enforcement and border-related activity. Today, courts rarely allow Bivens lawsuits to proceed, and suits against ICE agents almost never survive early dismissal.
Criminal cases: a high bar
Criminal prosecution presents its own challenges. Federal officers are seldom charged, and convictions are rarer still. State authorities may pursue charges only if they can demonstrate that an agent acted outside official duties and in a manner that was clearly unlawful or objectively unreasonable.
In cases involving use of force, that standard is exceptionally difficult to meet.
A system tilted toward immunity
For families seeking answers after a fatal ICE encounter, the legal framework offers limited options and even fewer guarantees. Civil claims face procedural mazes and capped recoveries. Personal lawsuits against agents are largely foreclosed. Criminal accountability remains uncommon.
The result is a system where seeking justice is possible in theory—but constrained at nearly every turn in practice.
