At first glance, it might seem straightforward.An ICE agent shot Renee Nicole Good, and her family has nowhired a prominent law firm to seek justice. In many other contexts, you might expect a lawsuit within months and a jury trial – if the officer doesn't settle – within a couple years.
But cases involving federal agents follow a different, far narrower path – one shaped by decades ofSupreme Courtdecisions as well as choices by Congress that have closed more and more courthouse doors to civil lawsuits seeking justice.
"If you want to sue a federal official for constitutional violations, you can't even get into court," Mike Fox, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, told USA TODAY.
One person was killed in a shooting involving a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota, officials said. Minneapolis Gov. Tim Walz said on Jan. 7 that the shooting involved U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has surged agents into the Minneapolis area amid a broader federal crackdown on fraud in the state. Here, a member of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) restrains a protester trying to block vehicles from leaving the scene after a driver of a vehicle was shot." style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 
Federal agent fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis: See chaotic scene
One person was killed ina shooting involvinga federal immigration agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota, officials said. Minneapolis Gov.Tim Walzsaid on Jan. 7that the shooting involved U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has surged agents into the Minneapolis area amid a broader federal crackdown on fraud in the state. Here, a member of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) restrains a protester trying to block vehicles from leaving the scene after a driver of a vehicle was shot.
About 50 years ago, the legal outlook for families such as Good's appeared brighter. The Supreme Court had just ruled in 1971, ina case called "Bivens,"that a man could sue federal drug enforcement agents who entered his home, handcuffed him, searched his apartment, arrested him, and later strip searched him, all without a warrant.
However, in the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has consistentlyrejected requests to allow other lawsuitsagainst federal officers to go forward, saying Congress has created a separate pathway that involves filling an administrative claim against the U.S. government alleging an officer committed one of a narrow list offenses, and potentially getting in front of a judge – but not a jury – down the line.
The system contrasts with what people can do when a local or state officer allegedly violates their rights. In those circumstances, Congress hasauthorized taking those officers straight to court, although plaintiffs still have to show officersdon't have certain immunity protectionsbefore a jury can hear the case.
The end result is a more challenging legal landscape for individuals who say a federal agent abused them.
"It's likely impossible to bring a lawsuit against individual immigration officers for violating constitutional rights," said Emma Winger, a deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit promoting immigrant rights.
Good's shooting has been followed by other violent and controversial incidents involving immigration enforcement agents, includingtwo men shot and wounded in Portland, Oregonon Jan. 8 and aman shot in the legin Minneapolis on Jan. 14. Federal authorities have defended its agents' actions as self-defense in all of these incidents.
Vice President JD Vancesaid Good was"trying to ram this guy with her car", while Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Freycalled that analysis ludicrous "spin."
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to USA TODAY's request for comment.
Here are the legal challenges facing Good's family – and others who allege federal immigration agents violated their rights:
Why Good family probably can't go straight to court
The Supreme Court has not only expressed skepticism about expanding the 1971 "Bivens" decision to new contexts. It has also blocked lawsuits against federal immigration agents in recent years.
In 2020, aconservative majority on the court ruledthat the parents of a Mexican teenager who was fatally shot by a border patrol agent across the U.S.-Mexico border line couldn't sue the agent for allegedly violating the teenager's constitutional rights.
In 2022, aconservative majority blocked a lawsuitby a U.S. citizen claiming a border patrol agent violated his constitutional rights by allegedly throwing him against a vehicle and then to the ground and by entering his property without permission.
In both those decisions, the Supreme Court specifically said authorizing lawsuits under the 1971 Bivens decision is "disfavored," and expressed special skepticism about lawsuits against border enforcement agents.
"What I like to say is (the Bivens decision) has been withered away so much that it functionally isn't actually a remedy," Fox said.
Even the law firm retained by Good's family,Romanucci & Blandin, has conceded it can't go straight to court, saying it may instead file an administrative claim that might eventually lead to a courthouse's doors.
"This process will not deter us in any way from fervently pursuing justice on behalf of Renee Good," said Antonio M. Romanucci, a founding partner of the firm, in a statement.
What can Good's family do?
When the Bivens case was decided in 1971, Chief Justice William Brennan wrote for a majority of the Supreme Court that constitutional rights would be "mere words" if federal officers couldn't be sued for violating them.
However, the Supreme Court has more recently said it's OK if those officers can't be directly sued, because Congress has created an alternative way to address abuses through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). That law that allows individuals to sue the U.S. government for damages when a federal employee injures themthrough a wrongful or negligent act,such as assault by a federal law enforcement officer.
However, the FTCA comes with its own limitations.
First, the FTCA only allows people to sue for a specific set of wrongdoings. When it comes to law enforcement officers, those can include assault, battery or false imprisonment. Those are different from constitutional violations, such as a claim under the Fourth Amendment that a federal officer unconstitutionally seized your property or used excessive force against you. For those, there isn't a remedy under the FTCA unless you can contort the allegation into one of the covered civil violations.
Still, some constitutional violations can also be couched as civil wrongdoings under the FTCA. For instance, claims of excessive force by a federal law enforcement officer could qualify as assault or battery under the FTCA. The challenge for plaintiffs such as the Good family is fitting their claims into what the FTCA covers, and getting past exceptions that sometimes shield officers anyway.
"Through the FTCA case, there is still potential for compensation," Winger said.
See ICE protests around country sparked after Minnesota shooting death
A second limitation to claims is that plaintiffs never have the right to a jury trial under the FTCA. Instead, if the government denies an administrative claim or fails to respond to it for six months, plaintiffs can sue and go to trial in front of a judge.
Judges are often not as attractive to plaintiffs as juries, according to Fox. Many of them made it to the federal bench by first working as afederal prosecutor or representing the government as a civil attorney.
Imagine you are a plaintiff arguing a federal officer used excessive force against you, Fox said.
"Do you want a former federal prosecutor making that decision, or do you want your neighbor making that decision? I certainly know what I'd pick," he said.
Romanucci, the Good family's lawyer, characterized the FTCA processes in his statement as "byzantine" and "time-consuming," and complained that a lawsuit under that law can't be heard by a jury of community members.
As ICE becomes more aggressive, Congress could act
While the law firm for Good's family has specifically voiced exasperation at the challenges to suing a federal agent for alleged misconduct, they're far from alone in complaining about tactics by immigration officers under the current Trump administration.
A group of people in the Los Angeles area sued the Trump administration in 2025, for instance, alleging ICE agents were violating constitutional rights by stopping people based on race, the language they speak, or their type of work. That lawsuit was permissible because it was seeking an order to change ICE's practices, but wasn't seeking monetary compensation.
In July, a district judge in that caseprohibited ICE agentsfrom relying on broad demographic or location-based factors to stop people, but the Supreme Court in Septemberhalted that rulingwhile the government's appeal continued.
Winger said previous administrations took a more targeted approach to immigration enforcement, but since Trump's return to the Oval Office, there's been a "dramatic rise" in indiscriminately enforcing immigration laws, in using force, in racial profiling, and in creating "theater" around immigration enforcement.
"It really cries out for guardrails, for ways of ensuring that these agents are following the law and that they're held accountable when they do not follow the law," she said.
The Trump administration has defended its tactics, arguing that its agents are questioning people based on a reasonable suspicion they are unlawfully in the country and that protesters are trying to stop ICE from doing its job.
Speaking Spanish or working in construction "heightens the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States," the Department of Homeland Securitysaid in one court filing, maintaining those are factors ICE agents can take into account.
But some members of Congress agree with Winger.
A group of Democrats hasintroduced legislationknown as the "Bivens Act" to allow lawsuits against federal officers, just as lawsuits against state officers are already allowed. Without support from the Republican majority or the White House, however, this is unlikely to pass during the Trump administration.
"If federal officials violate the Constitution, they should be held to the same standard as state and local officials, full stop," said Congressman Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, one of the bill's sponsors,in a statement.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Renee Good family wants justice but Supreme Court made it hard to sue ICE agent
