Are immigration agents above the law? Chicago professor dismantles claim of „absolute immunity“

Following the tragic death of Renee Nicole Good, a Minneapolis mother killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, the debate over the limits of federal immigration agents' authority has reignited in the US.

The trigger for the storm was a statement by Vice President JD Vance, who stated that the agent is „protected by absolute immunity.“ However, according to a prominent Chicago legal expert, that is simply not true.

Illinois and Minnesota filed lawsuits against the Trump administration almost simultaneously, challenging aggressive immigration enforcement methods. In the Illinois lawsuit, the named defendants include Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino. The Department of Homeland Security stated that the lawsuit is „baseless“ and that they will prove it in court.

Professor Harold Krent from the Chicago-Kent College of Law points out that American law has never recognized absolute immunity for immigration agents. Although he acknowledges that the path to criminal liability is extremely difficult, Krent emphasizes that legal mechanisms exist—including civil lawsuits and potential future federal proceedings—that can lead to accountability.

Of particular significance is the question of whether these lawsuits violate the so-called Supremacy Clause. According to Krent, the states argue that the federal government is using intimidation, mobile patrols, interrogations, and even tear gas to force the states to abandon their sanctuary policies. Such pressure, they argue, constitutes a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which protects state autonomy.

This is not a classic dispute over individual police procedures, but rather, as Krent states, a precedent – an attempt to judicially halt a systemic federal campaign aimed at changing state laws through force and pressure.

SOURCE: WTTW, PHOTO: PRINTSCREEN