Crime & Law
Chicago Law Professor on ‘Absolute Immunity’ and Immigration Agents’ Use of Force
Illinois and Minnesota officials are separately suing the Trump administration over the enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents.
The lawsuits seek broader limits on the conduct of immigration agents in both states.
It comes after last week’s fatal shooting of Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. Following the shooting, Vice President JD Vance said the agent was “protected by absolute immunity.”
The Illinois lawsuit names Secretary of Homeland Security Kirsti Noem and Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino, among others, as defendants. A spokesperson for DHS said the lawsuit is “baseless,” and that DHS looks forward to “proving that in court.”
Harold Krent, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, joined “Chicago Tonight” to discuss the lawsuits and the legality of immigration agents’ use of force.
Do immigration agents have absolute immunity?
“The vice president is simply wrong. There have been a number of cases and judicial pronouncements that say that the individuals are not absolutely immune, and no Supreme Court decision has ever held that. That being said, the road to a prosecution by a state official is tough, and obviously we’re not going to see a federal prosecution in this administration, but there could be a federal prosecution in a subsequent administration. There are some civil damages routes that are available as well. … There are some avenues available for some kind of accountability.”
Could the Illinois and Minnesota lawsuits clash with the Supremacy Clause?
“What Illinois and Minnesota are saying is that the use of these aggressive tactics, moving patrols, interrogations and the use of tear gas, is simply trying to bludgeon the states into changing their form of government, which is also protected under the Constitution in our 10th Amendment. What these lawsuits are saying is that this use of aggressive tactics is trying to brow-beat the states into abandoning their sanctuary policies to protect migrants within the communities, and that the use of tactics to affect that aim is actually itself a violation of the Constitution because of the rights protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.”
Are immigration agents breaking the law by using chemical weapons, interrogations and arrests against residents?
“That’s not what this lawsuit is about. There may be other aspects of the lawsuit that say there are illegal tactics, and there may be an injunction, and indeed, Judge (Sara) Ellis talked a little while ago about the potentially illegal activities of the Border Patrol agents. But this is more of a wide-ranging, unprecedented lawsuit, saying that this is really a campaign that the federal government is using to try and force the states to change their own laws.”
