Listen to the article
Immigration Officials Not Immune from All Prosecution, Legal Experts Say
Recent claims by Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller regarding legal immunity for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have sparked controversy among legal experts and state officials.
During an October 24 interview on Fox News, Miller stated, “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.”
Miller’s comments came in response to host Will Cain’s question about what federal authority the Trump administration could use to arrest Illinois Governor JB Pritzker if the governor attempted to arrest ICE agents operating in his state.
Legal experts, however, have pushed back against Miller’s sweeping claim. While immigration agents do have significant protections when performing official duties, these protections are not absolute.
“Federal officials are not categorically immune from state criminal prosecution, even while on duty,” wrote Bryna Godar, attorney at University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative, in a July report examining the legal boundaries of federal agent immunity.
Georgetown University constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck was more direct in his assessment, calling Miller’s statement “wrong on its face” in his October 27 newsletter.
The controversy stems from tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state authorities. Chicago has become the latest focus of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, with agents arresting more than 3,000 people in the city. In response, Governor Pritzker recently signed an executive order establishing the Illinois Accountability Commission to document federal law enforcement actions and refer possible violations to local and state agencies for investigation.
When asked for comment, the White House directed inquiries to an October 23 letter from U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to California officials stating, “The Department of Justice views any arrests of federal agents and officers in the performance of their official duties as both illegal and futile.”
The federal government’s own actions, however, demonstrate that agents can be held accountable. In 2024, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent was convicted and sentenced to federal prison for using excessive force against two people at the southern border following an investigation by Department of Homeland Security watchdogs.
Legal precedent establishes that federal agents have protection from state prosecution through what’s known as “supremacy clause immunity,” derived from the Constitution’s provision that federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. This immunity dates back to an 1890 Supreme Court case involving a U.S. marshal who killed a man while protecting a Supreme Court justice.
However, this immunity is conditional. Federal agents are generally protected from state prosecution only if their actions were authorized by federal law and were “necessary and proper” for fulfilling their duties.
A federal court ruled in 1990 that a customs agent was immune from state charges for speeding during a drug operation. Yet in another case that same year, a U.S. marine wasn’t given immunity after causing a fatal car accident while driving in a military convoy.
“While Supremacy Clause immunity grants federal officials a partial shield from state prosecution, that immunity is not absolute,” Godar noted in her analysis.
The legal implications extend beyond theoretical concerns. Several groups in Chicago, including journalism organizations, have sued the Trump administration, alleging federal agents are using “a pattern of extreme brutality” to silence press and civilians. In response, federal District Judge Sara Ellis ordered immigration agents to refrain from using tear gas and other riot control tactics unless people pose an immediate threat.
Governor Pritzker, for his part, has acknowledged that “federal agents typically have federal immunity, but they’re not immune from the federal government holding them accountable and responsible.” His statement is less expansive than Miller’s claim and correctly notes that federal agents can face prosecution from the federal government itself.
As tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state authorities continue, the legal boundaries of federal agent immunity remain a critical point of contention that courts may ultimately need to clarify.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
10 Comments
The discussion around ICE agent immunity raises important questions about the balance between federal authority and state/local jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see how this evolves through the courts and policy debates.
This article highlights how claims about federal immunity for ICE agents are not as straightforward as they may seem. It’s good to see legal experts providing more nuanced analysis on the scope and limits of these protections.
Agreed, the legal details are important here. Blanket claims of immunity are concerning, and it’s reassuring to see the nuances being explored.
Interesting to see the debate around the legal protections for ICE officers. It’s a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. I’m curious to learn more about the specifics of what immunity they actually have and where the limits are.
The legal protections for federal immigration agents are an important but often misunderstood issue. This article does a good job of clarifying the limitations on their immunity and the ongoing debates around it.
Examining the claims around ICE agent immunity is important to understand the full scope of their legal protections and limitations. I appreciate the balanced approach this article takes in exploring the nuances of this issue.
This is a complex and sensitive topic. I appreciate the attempt to fact-check the claims around ICE agent immunity and provide a more balanced perspective. It’s important to understand the nuances rather than relying on sweeping statements.
Agreed, nuance and balance are key when it comes to sensitive topics like this. Fact-checking claims is crucial to avoid misinformation.
As someone who follows the mining and energy sectors, I’m always interested in the regulatory environment and how it can impact operations. This article provides helpful context on the complex legal landscape around ICE agent immunity.
As a mining/energy investor, I’m always interested in the regulatory landscape and how it impacts operations. This article provides a helpful overview of the legal complexities around ICE agent immunity, which could have downstream effects on the industry.