COLUMN-Renee Good shooting could test limits of ICE immunity

By Jenna Greene

Jan 26 (Reuters) - As Renee Good's family members weigh legal action over her shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis, one of their lawyers openly acknowledges the legal obstacles ahead.

“Most people would look at that video (of Good being shot) and say, ‘File that lawsuit, go get justice,’” attorney Antonio Romanucci told me. But suing the federal government is a complex undertaking, he said, involving knotty questions of legal immunity and constitutional law – even as he described the legal path the family might take.

Good, 37, was shot dead in her car on Jan. 7 by ICE agent Jonathan Ross. U.S. officials allege she attempted to run him over; her defenders say video shows she steered away. Her death preceded the fatal shooting of a Minnesota man, Alex Pretti, on Saturday by U.S. immigration agents.

The U.S. Justice Department and ICE did not respond to requests for comment on Good's shooting. The Department of Homeland Security said a Border Patrol agent in Minneapolis shot Pretti in self-defense after he approached with a handgun and violently resisted attempts to disarm him, but video reviewed by Reuters contradicted that account.

As my colleague Jan Wolfe has reported, suing individual government agents is exceedingly difficult. An alternative is the Federal Tort Claims Act, a 1946 law that establishes government liability for injuries or deaths caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their jobs.

Punitive damages, which can dramatically increase awards, are barred, as are jury trials. In addition to injury and death claims, plaintiffs can seek compensation for emotional distress or pain and suffering, said Romanucci, a co-founder of Chicago-based Romanucci & Blandin who also represented the family of George Floyd.

For a case to succeed, however, plaintiffs often must overcome a major hurdle: the discretionary function exception.

If the government invokes the defense, a court will determine whether a federal employee's conduct involved making a judgment or choice rather than simply following rules, and whether that choice was grounded in considerations of public policy. If the answer to both is yes, the government can avoid liability.

According to a 2024 Harvard Law Review article, when the United States invokes the exception in moving to dismiss a claim, it succeeds in terminating nearly 75% of claims.

Romanucci said he expects the government would argue that Ross’s use of deadly force falls under the provision.

But that may not be the end of the story. Romanucci said he also anticipates that if Good’s family opts to bring a lawsuit, they'll allege Ross violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures by using deadly force.

That raises a pivotal question: Does the discretionary function exception shield conduct that is allegedly unconstitutional?

The federal appellate courts are split on the answer. Most – but not all – have held government officials “do not possess discretion to violate constitutional rights or federal statutes,” as the 4th Circuit put it in 2001. Notably, the 8th Circuit, which includes Minnesota, reached a similar conclusion in 2003, ruling that government activities that violate constitutional rights fall outside the discretionary-function exception.

But the 7th and 11th Circuits have rejected that view. The 11th Circuit wrote in 2021 that it doesn’t matter “how poorly, abusively, or unconstitutionally” an employee acted — only whether the underlying decision was discretionary.

Should Good's case proceed, this circuit split could position it for U.S. Supreme Court review.

In the meantime, recent ICE settlements show how plaintiffs alleging constitutional violations have prevailed.

For example, in 2024 a federal judge in Manhattan allowed a suit to move forward by a woman from Ecuador, identified only as MQ, who allegedly fell while shackled by ICE in 2021, broke her ankle, and waited three months in detention before receiving treatment.

After an immigration judge granted her release on bail, she spoke critically to New York lawmakers and others about her experience. She claimed ICE retaliated by placing her back in detention, in violation of her First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. ruled that the government cannot claim immunity from suit “when its officers engage in tortious conduct that violates the Constitution.” The government settled the case last year for $70,000, according to records in the Judgment Fund, which pays settlements and judgments against the United States.

ICE in court papers denied wrongdoing. MQ’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.

Judgment Fund records show other ICE-related settlements. For example, a Pennsylvania family claimed their Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a 2020 predawn raid in which officers allegedly injured a man and caused emotional distress to his wife and children. ICE again denied wrongdoing; the case settled for $72,500.

In total, the United States paid $5.25 million to settle 138 lawsuits involving ICE in 2025, according to Judgment Fund records, though most of the claims stemmed from traffic accidents.

Whether Good’s family can overcome the government’s defenses remains to be seen. If they sue, the case may ultimately test not just one agent’s judgment but the limits of federal accountability.