In Minneapolis last week, an immigration enforcement operation ended in tragedy. Renee Nicole Good was killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, setting off fresh questions about accountability when federal agents use deadly force.
Good’s family has said it is weighing a civil case over her death. But the path ahead is anything but straightforward. Suing the federal government, even in cases involving loss of life, is widely seen as a slow and tightly restricted process shaped by decades of legal protections.
At the center of those protections is a long-standing principle that shields the U.S. government from most lawsuits. One narrow opening exists through a mid-20th century statute that allows people to seek compensation when government employees cause harm while on duty. This law permits claims for negligence or wrongful conduct and can apply to everything from property damage during enforcement actions to fatal encounters.
That avenue, however, comes with sharp limits. Those bringing claims cannot ask for punitive damages, do not get a jury, and face compensation ceilings tied to state law. The result is often far smaller awards than those seen in ordinary civil cases.
There are other hurdles. If the government can show that an officer was making a judgment call rather than following a rigid rulebook, the claim may fail. Courts also give wide latitude to arguments that an officer’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances, including assertions of self-defense.
Attempts to sue federal officers personally are even more constrained. Half a century ago, the Supreme Court opened the door to limited claims against individual agents for constitutional violations. Over time, that door has steadily closed. Recent rulings have sharply narrowed these cases, and actions involving immigration enforcement are now largely off-limits. For officers like ICE agents, personal liability is effectively out of reach in most scenarios.
Criminal cases present another steep climb. Bringing charges against federal law enforcement requires meeting an exceptionally high standard. Such cases are uncommon and typically hinge on proving that an officer acted far outside official duties and clear legal boundaries.
Together, these layers of protection form a legal shield that is difficult to penetrate. For families like Renee Good’s, the challenge is not only seeking answers, but navigating a system designed to make accountability the exception rather than the rule.
