Deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis reignite legal battle between Democratic states and ICE

The deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two 37-year-old American citizens shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, have accelerated a legislative offensive in Democratic-led states to rein in immigration authorities and demand accountability for abuses and violations of constitutional rights. These initiatives are a direct challenge to the anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump administration, and include measures ranging from enabling civil lawsuits against agents to restricting cooperation between local and federal police.

While Congress negotiates to impose new limits on immigration agents as a condition for funding the Department of Homeland Security, whose budget expires on February 14, state legislatures have redoubled their efforts to pass bills that in some cases have been stalled for months, driven by what they describe as growing “impunity” for federal agents amid a “chilling wave of terror.” The events in Minneapolis add to an escalating confrontation that intensified last summer when Donald Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the governor’s consent, following a wave of protests against mass immigration raids and which later spread to other cities governed by Democrats.

“The aggressive tactics of the second Trump administration have generated a renewed sense of urgency among state and local governments to push for changes aimed at protecting their immigrant communities from harmful forms of immigration enforcement,” Ann Garcia, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Project, explained via email. “This is an attempt to fill a serious accountability gap that currently prevents people whose constitutional and civil rights have been violated by federal officials from filing civil lawsuits.”

California has been one of the leading testing grounds for this approach. Last week, the state Senate passed the so-called “No Kings Law,” which would allow civil lawsuits to be filed in state courts against federal officials — including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents — for violations of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and peaceful protest, illegal searches and detentions, and discriminatory practices based on race, national origin, or political affiliation. The measure is a protection “against the increasingly aggressive, illegal, and violent tactics of this administration,” said Democratic State Senator Lena Gonzalez, chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus and co-author of the law.

California lawmakers have also pushed proposals to ban migrant arrests near courthouses, limit police cooperation with ICE, and prohibit state or local officers from simultaneously working for the Department of Homeland Security. The state also passed a law called “No Secret Police” that prohibits officers from wearing masks during interactions with the public. Although the Trump administration challenged the measure, several other Democratic states have adopted similar legislation.

Democratic lawmakers have promoted initiatives with varying approaches. In Colorado, for example, a bill seeks a way for anyone injured during an immigration operation to sue federal agents in state courts. In Delaware, a bill is being debated that would eliminate tax benefits for airlines that assist in deportations, while in Wisconsin, a proposal similar to the California No Kings initiative is being considered, which would allow civil lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights. In Washington State, legislators are discussing an initiative that would prohibit the collection of immigration status information in schools. And in New York, the attorney general announced a legal observer program to monitor immigration operations and document potential abuses.

Lawmakers in seven states even launched a coordinated effort in December, combining proposed state laws with lawsuits filed by Democratic attorneys general.

Professor Muzaffar Chishti, a senior research fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, noted that previously these coalitions focused mainly on litigation — such as challenges to the immigration ban or the “public charge” rule — but now they are also coordinating how to respond politically.

“This demonstrates how quickly the political climate in the country has changed. Just a few months ago, it would have been considered political suicide for states to try to limit the enforcement of immigration laws, given that Trump’s election largely revolved around stricter immigration control. However, after what happened in Los Angeles and Chicago, many have begun to perceive a turning point. Some public opinion may have supported strict enforcement of immigration laws, but that support seems to have eroded. What was once a political advantage for Republicans has become a liability, and blue states are seeing an opportunity to limit what ICE can do.”

The fact that even the federal government is willing to negotiate some aspects of immigration law enforcement — such as the use of body cameras in Minneapolis — shows that these pressures are having an effect at the federal level, he noted.

The strategy, however, raises legal questions. Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell law professor and immigration expert, cautions that it is a complex legal issue. “Immigration has long been considered a national policy, not one of 50 different states. Immigration law is the supreme law and supersedes state laws; however, states can enact their own civil and criminal penalties, and when these intersect with immigration, it becomes difficult to determine which will prevail,” he explains.

García, from the National Immigration Project, adds that although the federal government has what is known as preeminence in immigration matters, “states and local authorities can choose not to cooperate with the federal government in these efforts.” The law “does not require states to remain passive when that power is abused. As long as Congress does not act to limit qualified immunity and establish accountability mechanisms in all 50 states, state and local governments are using the tools at their disposal to protect their residents, and in some cases, those actions could save lives,” she maintains.

Republican response

In Republican-governed states, the picture is the opposite, and laws reinforcing Trump’s immigration agenda have even been passed. In Florida, for example, the legislature opened its session last month with a package of measures promoted by Governor Ron DeSantis that includes restrictions on loans and other financial services for undocumented immigrants, as well as penalties for companies that hire them.

Yale-Loehr notes that the Trump administration has already begun legally challenging several of these state laws. The federal government has filed lawsuits against California and Illinois, arguing that these state laws are unconstitutional and jeopardize the safety of federal agents. “We’ll have to wait and see how the federal courts rule,” the expert points out. The issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court, he asserts.

Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin stated in an email that “what these states are attempting to do is illegal, and they know it. Federal officials acting within the scope of their duties are protected from liability under state law. Politicians are blaming law enforcement instead of looking in the mirror and acknowledging how they have fueled the hatred and violent attacks we are seeing against federal agents.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition