Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Renee Good vs. Ashli Babbitt, Part 2/3: The Shield 🛡️
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Renee Good vs. Ashli Babbitt, Part 2/3: The Shield 🛡️
Share this preview with others who should see it.
January 21, 2026
"That is b******t... ICE, get the f**k out of Minneapolis." — Mayor Jacob Frey, after learning federal agents blocked his city from investigating the shooting
Minnesota wants to prosecute Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good. Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty have launched an independent investigation. They've set up a public evidence portal. They're collecting videos and witness statements.
It won't matter.
Ross will never see the inside of a Minnesota courtroom. The legal architecture protecting federal agents was built in 1890, and it has never been breached.
And if you think accountability comes eventually, consider what happened to Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt. After killing an unarmed woman on camera, he was promoted to captain. He received a $36,000 retention bonus while officers injured on January 6 got $3,000. Taxpayers paid $21,000 for security upgrades to his home and $35,000 for his hotel accommodations at Joint Base Andrews.
The man who killed Ashli Babbitt didn't just avoid prosecution. He got a raise.
The Foundation: In re Neagle (1890)
In 1889, a U.S. Marshal named David Neagle was assigned to protect Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field. When a man attacked Justice Field at a California train station, Neagle shot and killed him. California charged Neagle with murder.
The Supreme Court intervened. In In re Neagle, the Court ruled that a federal officer cannot be prosecuted under state law for an act done in the line of duty, provided the act was “necessary and proper.”[1]
This post is for paid subscribers. Upgrade for full access.
The ruling established a principle that would echo for over a century:
"We cannot doubt the power of the president to take measures for the protection of a judge of one of the courts of the United States who, while in the discharge of the duties of his office, is threatened with a personal attack."
This established the two-prong test for Supremacy Clause immunity:
1. Was the officer performing an act authorized by federal law?
2. Was his conduct necessary and proper to discharge that duty?
If yes to both, the state cannot touch him.
The Modern Precedent: Wyoming v. Livingston (2006)
The case most relevant to Minneapolis is Wyoming v. Livingston. U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents trespassed on private land in Wyoming to manage wolf populations, violating state law. Wyoming tried to prosecute them.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed the charges.[2] The court ruled that the Supremacy Clause protects federal agents even when they violate state criminal statutes, as long as their actions are "reasonably necessary" to their federal mission.
The reasoning was explicit: immunity exists to prevent hostile state authorities from paralyzing federal operations. The court was worried about states weaponizing their criminal codes against federal agents.
That's exactly what the Trump administration will argue is happening in Minneapolis.
How the Shield Works
If Minnesota files charges against Ross, here's what happens:
Step 1: Removal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, Ross has the absolute right to remove the case from state court to federal court.[3] This takes the case away from local judges and Minnesota juries.
Step 2: Motion to Dismiss. In federal court, Ross's lawyers file a motion to dismiss based on Supremacy Clause immunity.
Step 3: The Standard. The federal judge decides whether Ross's belief that he was in danger was "objectively reasonable." Given that Ross was dragged by a car six months earlier, given the federal narrative that Good's vehicle was a weapon, the bar for Minnesota to prove his actions were not "necessary and proper" is nearly impossible to clear.
Unless prosecutors can prove Ross acted with malice or completely outside the scope of his duties, the case gets dismissed before trial.
This isn't speculation. It's the pattern.
The Template: Ashli Babbitt
When the DOJ investigated the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, they laid out the blueprint for how federal killings get closed.[4]
The investigation acknowledged that Babbitt was unarmed. It acknowledged that she gave no verbal threat. But it concluded that Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd had an "objectively reasonable" belief that she posed an imminent threat to members of Congress.
The DOJ's closing memo explained the standard:
"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation... Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber."
The key word is "objectively reasonable." Not correct. Not justified in hindsight. Just reasonable, given what the officer perceived in the moment.
Byrd perceived a mob breaching the last barrier. Ross perceived a vehicle moving toward him (even if video suggests it was turning away). The officer's perception is what matters, not the reality.
To prosecute under federal civil rights law (18 U.S.C. § 242), you need to prove the officer acted "willfully," with specific intent to violate someone's rights.[5] In chaotic situations, that's nearly impossible. An officer can be wrong, even recklessly wrong, without being willful.
The DOJ closed the Babbitt case. No charges. The family sued. The government settled for $5 million.[6]
That's the formula: criminal immunity, civil settlement.
The Rewards
You saw the numbers above. But here's what makes them worse.
Byrd's promotion to captain came despite a disciplinary history that included leaving his loaded service weapon unattended in a Capitol Visitor Center bathroom for 55 minutes in 2019.[13] He was suspended 33 days for that. Rep. Barry Loudermilk's oversight investigation found three additional referrals to the Office of Professional Responsibility, but those records are "reportedly missing."[14]
The $36,000 retention bonus wasn't standard. Officers injured on January 6, the ones who actually got hurt defending the Capitol, received $3,000.[14]
Compare that to Derek Chauvin: 22.5 years state prison, plus 21 years federal. His life is over.
The difference? Chauvin was a local cop. State prosecutors could touch him. The video went viral, the cities burned, and someone had to be sacrificed. Byrd was a federal agent. The DOJ investigated itself and found nothing wrong. The political calculus protected him.
The Judgment Fund
When federal agents kill people and the families sue, the settlements don't come from ICE's budget or the FBI's budget. They come from the Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation managed by the Treasury Department to pay claims against the United States.[7]
This creates a moral hazard. Agencies don't pay for their own misconduct. There's no financial consequence for aggressive tactics or poor training. The cost is externalized to taxpayers.
The Babbitt family got $5 million. Border Patrol has paid out over $60 million in settlements for violence and misconduct.[8] The Parkland families got $127.5 million for the FBI's failure to act on tips. The money flows, the agents walk, and nothing changes.
You're subsidizing a system where federal agents can kill with impunity. The settlement is the cost of doing business.
The Statistical Void
Here's something that should alarm you: we don't actually know how many people federal agents kill.
Local police shootings are tracked by media databases, state mandates, and independent organizations like Mapping Police Violence. The numbers are public. The trends are visible. We know that American police kill about 1,100 to 1,300 people per year.[9]
Federal agents? The data is fragmented. The FBI runs a National Use-of-Force Data Collection program, but federal agency participation is inconsistent and largely voluntary.[10] The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly criticized DHS for failing to maintain reliable records on its agents' use of force.[11]
A 2023 GAO report put it bluntly:
"DHS does not have complete, accurate data on use of force incidents across its law enforcement components."
This isn't an accident. Opacity protects the system.
What we do know: the prosecution rate for local police who kill is about 1-3%.[9] Low, but it exists. For federal agents, the rate is statistically zero. Since 2000, state prosecutors have almost never successfully pierced Supremacy Clause immunity.
Federal agents operate in a different legal universe than local cops. Derek Chauvin went to prison for killing George Floyd. Michael Byrd did NBC interviews explaining why he was a hero. Jonathan Ross will probably get reassigned.
If you want to kill with impunity in America, don't be a local cop. Be a federal agent. The badge is the same. The gun is the same. The immunity is not. Local cops walk free 97-99% of the time. Federal agents walk free 100% of the time.
Why Ross Will Walk
The case against Ross faces every obstacle:
Removal: Guaranteed. The case will be in federal court within weeks of any state charges.
The trauma defense: Ross was dragged by a car six months ago. Vice President Vance has already invoked this publicly.[12] The argument writes itself: of course he perceived the vehicle as a threat.
The federal narrative: DHS has been calling Good a "domestic terrorist" since the day she died. That framing will follow her into any courtroom.
The Neagle standard: Was Ross performing an authorized act (immigration enforcement)? Yes. Was shooting someone he perceived as a threat "necessary and proper"? That's a low bar when the officer has documented trauma from a similar situation.
The absence of precedent: Name the last time a state successfully prosecuted a federal agent for a killing. You can't, because it doesn't happen.
Ellison and Moriarty can investigate. They can hold press conferences. They can collect evidence. Mayor Frey can rage all he wants.
But the shield was forged in 1890, and it hasn't cracked yet.
But America isn't the only country where agents of the state kill citizens. Other democracies face this too. The difference is what happens next.
That's Part 3.
Notes
Notes
[1] "In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890)." Supreme Court of the United States. Established the foundation of Supremacy Clause immunity for federal officers acting in the line of duty.
[2] "Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2006)." Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Affirmed that federal agents are protected from state prosecution even when violating state criminal statutes.
[3] "28 U.S.C. § 1442 - Federal officer removal statute." Allows federal officers to remove state criminal cases to federal court.
[4] "Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt." U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia, April 2021. Explains the legal standard applied to the Babbitt shooting.
[5] "18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law." Requires proof of "willful" conduct to prosecute federal officers for civil rights violations.
[6] "Justice Department to pay $5 million to family of Ashli Babbitt." The 19th News, May 2025. Settlement reached without admission of wrongdoing.
[7] "Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation Section." Department of Justice. Describes the Judgment Fund mechanism for paying claims against the United States.
[8] "Border patrol violence: US paid $60m to cover claims against the agency." The Guardian, May 2018. Documents the scale of settlements for Border Patrol misconduct.
[9] "2025 Police Violence Report." Mapping Police Violence. Tracks police killings and prosecution rates in the United States.
[10] "FBI Releases Use-of-Force Data Update." FBI Press Release. Notes limitations in federal agency participation.
[11] "Law Enforcement: DHS Should Strengthen Use of Force Data Collection and Analysis." Government Accountability Office, 2023. Criticizes DHS for inconsistent use-of-force tracking.
[12] "ICE agent who fatally shot woman in Minneapolis was dragged by car in earlier incident." Star Tribune, January 2026. Reports on Ross's prior traumatic incident and Vance's public defense.
[13] "Capitol Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Promoted." Newsmax, August 2023. Reports Byrd's promotion from lieutenant to captain.
[14] "Cop who killed Ashli Babbitt has 'significant' discipline history, including gun incidents." Blaze Media, November 2024. Details Rep. Loudermilk's investigation into Byrd's disciplinary record, retention bonuses, and taxpayer-funded accommodations.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe
View all episodes
By Tatsu IkedaShare this preview with others who should see it.
January 21, 2026
"That is b******t... ICE, get the f**k out of Minneapolis." — Mayor Jacob Frey, after learning federal agents blocked his city from investigating the shooting
Minnesota wants to prosecute Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good. Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty have launched an independent investigation. They've set up a public evidence portal. They're collecting videos and witness statements.
It won't matter.
Ross will never see the inside of a Minnesota courtroom. The legal architecture protecting federal agents was built in 1890, and it has never been breached.
And if you think accountability comes eventually, consider what happened to Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt. After killing an unarmed woman on camera, he was promoted to captain. He received a $36,000 retention bonus while officers injured on January 6 got $3,000. Taxpayers paid $21,000 for security upgrades to his home and $35,000 for his hotel accommodations at Joint Base Andrews.
The man who killed Ashli Babbitt didn't just avoid prosecution. He got a raise.
The Foundation: In re Neagle (1890)
In 1889, a U.S. Marshal named David Neagle was assigned to protect Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field. When a man attacked Justice Field at a California train station, Neagle shot and killed him. California charged Neagle with murder.
The Supreme Court intervened. In In re Neagle, the Court ruled that a federal officer cannot be prosecuted under state law for an act done in the line of duty, provided the act was “necessary and proper.”[1]
This post is for paid subscribers. Upgrade for full access.
The ruling established a principle that would echo for over a century:
"We cannot doubt the power of the president to take measures for the protection of a judge of one of the courts of the United States who, while in the discharge of the duties of his office, is threatened with a personal attack."
This established the two-prong test for Supremacy Clause immunity:
1. Was the officer performing an act authorized by federal law?
2. Was his conduct necessary and proper to discharge that duty?
If yes to both, the state cannot touch him.
The Modern Precedent: Wyoming v. Livingston (2006)
The case most relevant to Minneapolis is Wyoming v. Livingston. U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents trespassed on private land in Wyoming to manage wolf populations, violating state law. Wyoming tried to prosecute them.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed the charges.[2] The court ruled that the Supremacy Clause protects federal agents even when they violate state criminal statutes, as long as their actions are "reasonably necessary" to their federal mission.
The reasoning was explicit: immunity exists to prevent hostile state authorities from paralyzing federal operations. The court was worried about states weaponizing their criminal codes against federal agents.
That's exactly what the Trump administration will argue is happening in Minneapolis.
How the Shield Works
If Minnesota files charges against Ross, here's what happens:
Step 1: Removal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, Ross has the absolute right to remove the case from state court to federal court.[3] This takes the case away from local judges and Minnesota juries.
Step 2: Motion to Dismiss. In federal court, Ross's lawyers file a motion to dismiss based on Supremacy Clause immunity.
Step 3: The Standard. The federal judge decides whether Ross's belief that he was in danger was "objectively reasonable." Given that Ross was dragged by a car six months earlier, given the federal narrative that Good's vehicle was a weapon, the bar for Minnesota to prove his actions were not "necessary and proper" is nearly impossible to clear.
Unless prosecutors can prove Ross acted with malice or completely outside the scope of his duties, the case gets dismissed before trial.
This isn't speculation. It's the pattern.
The Template: Ashli Babbitt
When the DOJ investigated the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, they laid out the blueprint for how federal killings get closed.[4]
The investigation acknowledged that Babbitt was unarmed. It acknowledged that she gave no verbal threat. But it concluded that Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd had an "objectively reasonable" belief that she posed an imminent threat to members of Congress.
The DOJ's closing memo explained the standard:
"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation... Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber."
The key word is "objectively reasonable." Not correct. Not justified in hindsight. Just reasonable, given what the officer perceived in the moment.
Byrd perceived a mob breaching the last barrier. Ross perceived a vehicle moving toward him (even if video suggests it was turning away). The officer's perception is what matters, not the reality.
To prosecute under federal civil rights law (18 U.S.C. § 242), you need to prove the officer acted "willfully," with specific intent to violate someone's rights.[5] In chaotic situations, that's nearly impossible. An officer can be wrong, even recklessly wrong, without being willful.
The DOJ closed the Babbitt case. No charges. The family sued. The government settled for $5 million.[6]
That's the formula: criminal immunity, civil settlement.
The Rewards
You saw the numbers above. But here's what makes them worse.
Byrd's promotion to captain came despite a disciplinary history that included leaving his loaded service weapon unattended in a Capitol Visitor Center bathroom for 55 minutes in 2019.[13] He was suspended 33 days for that. Rep. Barry Loudermilk's oversight investigation found three additional referrals to the Office of Professional Responsibility, but those records are "reportedly missing."[14]
The $36,000 retention bonus wasn't standard. Officers injured on January 6, the ones who actually got hurt defending the Capitol, received $3,000.[14]
Compare that to Derek Chauvin: 22.5 years state prison, plus 21 years federal. His life is over.
The difference? Chauvin was a local cop. State prosecutors could touch him. The video went viral, the cities burned, and someone had to be sacrificed. Byrd was a federal agent. The DOJ investigated itself and found nothing wrong. The political calculus protected him.
The Judgment Fund
When federal agents kill people and the families sue, the settlements don't come from ICE's budget or the FBI's budget. They come from the Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation managed by the Treasury Department to pay claims against the United States.[7]
This creates a moral hazard. Agencies don't pay for their own misconduct. There's no financial consequence for aggressive tactics or poor training. The cost is externalized to taxpayers.
The Babbitt family got $5 million. Border Patrol has paid out over $60 million in settlements for violence and misconduct.[8] The Parkland families got $127.5 million for the FBI's failure to act on tips. The money flows, the agents walk, and nothing changes.
You're subsidizing a system where federal agents can kill with impunity. The settlement is the cost of doing business.
The Statistical Void
Here's something that should alarm you: we don't actually know how many people federal agents kill.
Local police shootings are tracked by media databases, state mandates, and independent organizations like Mapping Police Violence. The numbers are public. The trends are visible. We know that American police kill about 1,100 to 1,300 people per year.[9]
Federal agents? The data is fragmented. The FBI runs a National Use-of-Force Data Collection program, but federal agency participation is inconsistent and largely voluntary.[10] The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly criticized DHS for failing to maintain reliable records on its agents' use of force.[11]
A 2023 GAO report put it bluntly:
"DHS does not have complete, accurate data on use of force incidents across its law enforcement components."
This isn't an accident. Opacity protects the system.
What we do know: the prosecution rate for local police who kill is about 1-3%.[9] Low, but it exists. For federal agents, the rate is statistically zero. Since 2000, state prosecutors have almost never successfully pierced Supremacy Clause immunity.
Federal agents operate in a different legal universe than local cops. Derek Chauvin went to prison for killing George Floyd. Michael Byrd did NBC interviews explaining why he was a hero. Jonathan Ross will probably get reassigned.
If you want to kill with impunity in America, don't be a local cop. Be a federal agent. The badge is the same. The gun is the same. The immunity is not. Local cops walk free 97-99% of the time. Federal agents walk free 100% of the time.
Why Ross Will Walk
The case against Ross faces every obstacle:
Removal: Guaranteed. The case will be in federal court within weeks of any state charges.
The trauma defense: Ross was dragged by a car six months ago. Vice President Vance has already invoked this publicly.[12] The argument writes itself: of course he perceived the vehicle as a threat.
The federal narrative: DHS has been calling Good a "domestic terrorist" since the day she died. That framing will follow her into any courtroom.
The Neagle standard: Was Ross performing an authorized act (immigration enforcement)? Yes. Was shooting someone he perceived as a threat "necessary and proper"? That's a low bar when the officer has documented trauma from a similar situation.
The absence of precedent: Name the last time a state successfully prosecuted a federal agent for a killing. You can't, because it doesn't happen.
Ellison and Moriarty can investigate. They can hold press conferences. They can collect evidence. Mayor Frey can rage all he wants.
But the shield was forged in 1890, and it hasn't cracked yet.
But America isn't the only country where agents of the state kill citizens. Other democracies face this too. The difference is what happens next.
That's Part 3.
Notes
Notes
[1] "In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890)." Supreme Court of the United States. Established the foundation of Supremacy Clause immunity for federal officers acting in the line of duty.
[2] "Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2006)." Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Affirmed that federal agents are protected from state prosecution even when violating state criminal statutes.
[3] "28 U.S.C. § 1442 - Federal officer removal statute." Allows federal officers to remove state criminal cases to federal court.
[4] "Department of Justice Closes Investigation into the Death of Ashli Babbitt." U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia, April 2021. Explains the legal standard applied to the Babbitt shooting.
[5] "18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law." Requires proof of "willful" conduct to prosecute federal officers for civil rights violations.
[6] "Justice Department to pay $5 million to family of Ashli Babbitt." The 19th News, May 2025. Settlement reached without admission of wrongdoing.
[7] "Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation Section." Department of Justice. Describes the Judgment Fund mechanism for paying claims against the United States.
[8] "Border patrol violence: US paid $60m to cover claims against the agency." The Guardian, May 2018. Documents the scale of settlements for Border Patrol misconduct.
[9] "2025 Police Violence Report." Mapping Police Violence. Tracks police killings and prosecution rates in the United States.
[10] "FBI Releases Use-of-Force Data Update." FBI Press Release. Notes limitations in federal agency participation.
[11] "Law Enforcement: DHS Should Strengthen Use of Force Data Collection and Analysis." Government Accountability Office, 2023. Criticizes DHS for inconsistent use-of-force tracking.
[12] "ICE agent who fatally shot woman in Minneapolis was dragged by car in earlier incident." Star Tribune, January 2026. Reports on Ross's prior traumatic incident and Vance's public defense.
[13] "Capitol Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Promoted." Newsmax, August 2023. Reports Byrd's promotion from lieutenant to captain.
[14] "Cop who killed Ashli Babbitt has 'significant' discipline history, including gun incidents." Blaze Media, November 2024. Details Rep. Loudermilk's investigation into Byrd's disciplinary record, retention bonuses, and taxpayer-funded accommodations.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe