On Wednesday morning in Minneapolis, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shot and killed a woman in her car during a federal immigration enforcement operation. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials characterized the shooting as a response to “an act of domestic terrorism,” stating the woman “weaponized her vehicle” and attempted to “run over” officers. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has disputed that account, describing the incident as “an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying.” Governor Tim Walz described it as “totally avoidable.” The FBI and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension initially announced they were jointly investigating the matter. Within hours, the U.S. Attorney’s Office reversed course, stripping the state agency of access to case materials and asserting unilateral control over the investigation.

The fatal Minneapolis shooting is among the most serious in a series of incidents over recent months involving federal immigration agents’ use of force. Videos have documented agents firing pepper balls at clergy, shooting rubber bullets at journalists, and deploying tear gas against protesters. Many of these incidents raise questions about whether agents used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and federal criminal law. Yet, the Minnesota incident is only the first where the FBI has indicated it is investigating, and so far, DOJ has announced no criminal charges related to any such incident. While the current investigation is an important step, it is far from sufficient.

Private plaintiffs are challenging the legality of many DHS tactics in court. The Department of Justice (DOJ), for its part, has remained conspicuously silent through months of these tactics. This silence is a dangerous abdication of DOJ’s authority and responsibility. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which makes it a crime for any government official to willfully deprive someone of their constitutional rights, DOJ can and should investigate and, where appropriate, charge federal agents who use excessive force.

A Pattern of Force Raising Constitutional Questions

Reports of aggressive, violent, and potentially unlawful tactics by some federal agents have followed each surge of officers arriving in a new city to conduct the administration’s immigration enforcement operations. These have included a military-style, nighttime raid on sleeping families at an apartment complex, the firing of tear gas canisters, rubber bullets, and pepper balls at non-violent protestors, and widespread racial profiling followed by stops and detentions without reasonable suspicion or warrants. State and local officials have decried the unreasonable uses of force in court and in public statements, and at least two Senators have publicly called on DOJ to investigate. Nevertheless, the President and Department of Homeland Security leadership have repeatedly defended their tactics.

Traditionally, the DOJ—in any administration—would seek accountability for unlawful, excessively violent tactics by law enforcement officers, by charging them with violating people’s constitutional rights. However, the DOJ has not announced any charges relating to federal immigration enforcement actions, nor (before Wednesday) had it indicated it had even taken notice.

This is not surprising. By now, it is clear to those paying attention that the DOJ is acting as the administration’s enforcer, prioritizing politicized prosecutions against Trump’s perceived enemies, rather than exercising its independent judgment. And while public attention, understandably, has focused on those high-profile questionable prosecutions, DOJ’s omissions—the cases it is choosing not to pursue—also deserve scrutiny. The agency’s silence about violent tactics by federal agents suggests an apparent abandonment of its criminal civil rights enforcement authority, a silence that is destructive to the rule of law itself.

DOJ’s failure to act signals a troubling abdication of its authority to enforce the constitutional limits of federal agents’ coercive power. The federal statute that is most clearly implicated by aggressive ICE and CBP tactics, 18 U.S.C. § 242, is a Reconstruction-era law that makes it a criminal offense for federal, state, or local government officials to willfully deprive a person of their constitutional rights. Congress passed the statute as part of a series of laws intended to protect the rights of Black Americans following the Civil War. The statute was among those aimed at enforcing the protections of the newly enacted Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

Investigations and prosecutions under Section 242, while not numerous, are often significant. Career prosecutors under both Republican and Democratic administrations have, for decades, relied on the statute to investigate the conduct of law enforcement officers when needed. DOJ used Section 242 to prosecute the men, including law enforcement officials, responsible for the 1964 murder of three young civil rights activists in Mississippi. In 1993, under the leadership of Attorney General Bill Barr, DOJ obtained indictments against four Los Angeles Police Department officers involved in the 1991 beating of Rodney King, two of whom were later convicted at trial. Nearly three decades later, the first Trump Administration’s DOJ, again under Attorney General Bill Barr’s leadership, opened an investigation into the death of George Floyd. The DOJ later charged four Minneapolis Police Department officers with violating Section 242, ultimately convicting them for violating Mr. Floyd’s constitutional rights.

DOJ’s failure to address apparent uses of excessive force by federal immigration agents, coupled with DHS doubling down on the appropriateness of its violent and constitutionally questionable tactics, makes the situation more dangerous. In prior administrations, agents credibly accused of violating the Constitution by using unreasonable force would commonly be placed on leave, or on desk duty, while the agency (in this case, ICE or CBP) conducted an internal administrative investigation or referred the incident to DOJ. DOJ could then conduct a criminal investigation when warranted and, if no charges resulted, the agency could determine whether it needed to take administrative action or return the officer to enforcement duties. Currently, however, DHS has permitted agents to continue to serve, with few known exceptions—and even lauded their conduct. Meanwhile DOJ’s silence emboldens further aggressive uses of force.

Select Incidents Meriting Investigation

Over the past seven months, many incidents involving federal immigration agents’ force have been documented on video. While each incident requires thorough investigation to determine whether agents violated federal law, the publicly available evidence in many cases appears to implicate Section 242 and merit a full investigation. Indeed, at least one federal court has already concluded that individual and organizational plaintiffs made a “strong showing” that the government’s tactics constituted unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

September 19, 2025 – Broadview, Illinois

To take one widely-reported example, on September 19, 2025, at least one federal agent stationed on the roof of an ICE processing and detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, fired pepper balls at Reverend David Black as he prayed outside the building with a group of protestors holding signs, shouting, and dancing. A video shows Reverend Black, dressed in clerical garb and standing with his arms extended, palms open and empty, in a parking space outside the building, when an agent drew and repeatedly fired a pepper ball launcher at Black, striking him in the head, arms, and torso, and causing him to fall to his knees. Black later stated in a court declaration that the officers had issued no warnings or orders to disperse before firing, and none can be heard in the video. Neither Black nor the other protestors visible in the video appeared to pose any threat to the officers.

While a full investigation would be required, the publicly available evidence indicates that one or more officers may have committed a felony civil rights violation in firing pepper balls at Reverend Black. To establish a violation of Section 242, a defendant must have been (1) acting under color of law when he (2) willfully (3) deprived a person of a constitutional or federal right. Officers act “under color of law” when they act in their official capacity. The agent who fired at Reverend Black was acting under color of law, and in firing pepper balls at Reverend Black and other protesters, the officer may have violated both Black’s First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Focusing on Black’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer, it is not apparent there was a need for any force—the protestors did not pose a discernable threat to the safety of the officers or anyone else, and the video indicates no urgent need for the protestors to move. Firing pepper balls with no warning at a pastor’s head while he was praying under these circumstances is objectively unreasonable. And the very obvious unreasonableness of those actions indicates that the officer knew firing on Black would be unlawful. Knowing this—and choosing to fire anyway—is the definition of willfulness. Finally, Reverend Black’s reaction—clasping his hand to his eyes and collapsing on his knees—shows that he suffered bodily injury. Proving this element makes the crime a felony. In any previous administration, an incident like this, caught on video, would have prompted an immediate DOJ investigation.

October 23, 2025 – Oakland, California

In Oakland, on October 23, 2025, the Reverend Jorge Bautista attended an early morning vigil to protest an expected immigration enforcement surge in the Bay Area. As trucks carrying CBP agents drove past protestors toward a bridge connecting Oakland with the agents’ destination, a Coast Guard base, agents exited the trucks and approached the protestors, including Reverend Bautista. One agent trained a pepper ball launcher on Bautista from about five feet away. As Bautista said, “we’re here in peace,” the agent fired a pepper ball into Bautista’s face, leaving him coated in powder and bleeding from his chin. While video and photographs that capture the incident do not show all the circumstances that would be relevant to determining whether this use of force was reasonable, firing at such close range at the head of a pastor who, by his words and actions showed that he did not pose a threat, appears unreasonable; these facts would support an investigation.

June 7, 2025 – Paramount, California

On June 7, 2025, journalist Ryanne Mena was interviewing protestors near a Home Depot in Paramount, California, wearing press credentials, when federal agents exiting a nearby warehouse began firing rubber bullets at her and the protestors. They did so without first issuing a warning. Mena said relatively few protestors were present, and she did not see anyone threatening or antagonizing the agents. As she and a second journalist ran for cover, a rubber bullet struck her in the head; the other journalist was hit in the forehead with a tear gas canister. This incident, too, would be an appropriate subject for a Section 242 investigation.

Proving Section 242 violations beyond a reasonable doubt can be challenging in part because the law permits officers to use force—even lethal force—in certain circumstances. When officers willfully exceed the bounds of the law, however, the DOJ is authorized to prosecute. The DOJ’s prosecution of federal officers who have violated Section 242 involves, at its core, the enforcement of not just a criminal statute but the rule of law itself—as it ensures the officers entrusted to execute the law themselves act within its bounds.

Bringing civil rights prosecutions against law enforcement officers is never easy. Juries tend to be wary of harshly judging those who choose a job protecting the public at risk to their own safety. But DOJ has traditionally recognized the importance of holding the agents and officers who wear badges and carry guns responsible when they willfully violate the rights of those whom they serve. This practice underscores the idea that no one is above the law.

The video evidence and other evidence already in the public domain about these and other incidents provides ample cause to open civil rights investigations. Yet we have heard resounding silence from this DOJ.

Other Avenues for Relief are Challenging

Action from DOJ in response to excessive force by federal immigrant agents is vital also because alternative paths for pursuing accountability are challenging. Local prosecutors face significant legal hurdles in bringing charges against federal officials for violating state law: where federal agents’ actions are authorized by federal law and “necessary and proper” for fulfilling their federal duties, they may be immune from prosecution under the Supremacy Clause. Private litigants also face significant doctrinal challenges when suing federal officers, as the Supreme Court has both limited the availability of injunctive relief for ongoing violations and narrowed the circumstances under which suits for monetary damages may be brought against federal officials. Where litigants can sue, the robust protections provided by qualified immunity often mean the suit is dismissed before discovery—even if a court agrees that the federal officials violated the Constitution.

States, therefore, are pursuing creative methods to document perceived abuses, as Governor Pritzker has done in creating the Illinois Accountability Commission. This Commission aims to gather evidence of potentially unlawful conduct by federal agents, to support referrals to investigative agencies and recommendations for changes to existing laws to better protect state residents. Other states and cities have created online portals that residents can use to report misconduct by federal agents. Still others have announced they are investigating possible violations of state law by federal agents or that they stand ready to do so. Meanwhile, many state and local law enforcement leaders remain focused on improving both public safety and community trust, which go hand-in-hand. Their approaches include better engagement with communities, an emphasis on deescalation, and new guidelines for policing protest events. Where federal officers are not immune from state prosecution (because, for instance, their actions violate federal law) states can select the appropriate charge from an array of state statutes, including ones that, unlike Section 242, permit prosecution for criminal negligence and other lesser levels of intent than Section 242 requires.

***

DOJ has the authority, resources, and responsibility to hold federal agents accountable for willful constitutional violations. It has the tools and power to deter further unlawful acts. Unfortunately, DOJ’s current abdication of responsibility puts communities at needless risk and undermines the rule of law itself.

FEATURED IMAGE: Protestors clash with federal agents outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on January 8, 2026. A US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shot and killed an American woman on the streets of Minneapolis January 7, leading to huge protests and outrage from local leaders who rejected White House claims she was a domestic terrorist. The woman, identified in local media as 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, was hit at point blank range as she apparently tried to drive away from agents who were crowding around her car, which they said was blocking their way. (Photo by Octavio JONES / AFP via Getty Images)