In this conversation, reporter Madison McVann and legal analyst Ian Millhiser dissect the escalating tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis following the death of Renee Gude. The core thesis reveals that the assertion of "immunity" for ICE agents, while seemingly a legal shield, actively undermines the very concept of accountability, creating a system where enforcement actions can occur with significantly diminished fear of consequence. This breakdown in accountability doesn't merely embolden ICE; it actively fuels public distrust and necessitates a shift in community response from passive observation to proactive disruption. The hidden consequence is a destabilization of the social contract, where the law's perceived inapplicability to powerful actors erodes its legitimacy for everyone. This conversation is crucial for community organizers, legal observers, and anyone concerned with the erosion of civil liberties, offering a crucial lens into how systemic impunity can be challenged and what risks are involved in doing so.

The Unseen Costs of "Immunity": How ICE's Asserted Shield Fuels a Cycle of Distrust and Resistance in Minneapolis

The immediate aftermath of Renee Gude's death at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis was met with a familiar, yet ultimately insufficient, expectation: accountability. For many, the legal system is the bedrock of order, a mechanism that ensures actions, particularly those by law enforcement, are met with appropriate consequences. This belief, however, is increasingly challenged by the realities on the ground, as revealed in a conversation with Madison McVann, a reporter at the Minnesota Reformer, and Ian Millhiser, a legal analyst for Vox. Their insights paint a stark picture: the assertion of "immunity" by ICE agents, far from being a mere legal technicality, actively dismantles the deterrent effect of the law, fostering a climate of impunity that necessitates a more active, and often riskier, form of community resistance. The obvious solution--investigation and prosecution--is insufficient because it fails to account for the systemic dynamics at play, including the deliberate undermining of investigations and the weaponization of legal doctrines to shield agents from scrutiny.

When the Law Becomes a Shield, Not a Sword: The Escalation in Minneapolis

The narrative emerging from Minneapolis is one of escalating tension, where the presence of ICE agents, particularly after the controversial killing of Renee Gude, has become a focal point for community anxiety and organized resistance. Madison McVann's reporting highlights a proactive strategy by residents: following ICE vehicles, recording their actions, and attempting to disrupt enforcement. This isn't simply about observation; it's a calculated effort to deter ICE agents from making arrests by making their operations visible and documented. "The people I rode along with think it is working," McVann reports. "They basically say if we follow ICE and we record them they're a lot less likely to get out of their cars and start asking people for their citizenship documentation."

This tactic, however, is not without its immediate dangers and downstream consequences. McVann recounts instances where ICE agents, upon realizing they are being followed, engage in aggressive maneuvers, attempt to identify the observers, and even visit their homes. In one particularly chilling account, an ICE vehicle not only stopped to confront the observers but later circled back to the home of one of them, causing terror for his wife and drawing the attention of neighbors. The observers themselves, Patty and L, were eventually arrested, their car window smashed, and they were detained, only to be released without charges. This direct retaliation demonstrates a critical consequence of community intervention: the targeted reprisal by the state against those who attempt to hold it accountable.

The situation is further complicated by the Trump administration's framing of these community observers as "activists" with "mendacious goals" or even "domestic terrorists." This narrative, amplified by figures like then-Vice President Pence, attempts to reframe resistance as a threat to law enforcement, thereby justifying aggressive enforcement and further eroding public trust. McVann counters this by emphasizing the organizers' commitment to operating "within the bounds of the law," navigating a "gray area between what's considered obstruction in a legal sense and what is practically obstruction of ICE's work." The act of honking horns or following a vehicle, while not physically blocking an arrest, undeniably discourages ICE operations, creating a dynamic where the system's response is not to self-correct but to escalate and retaliate.

The Erosion of Accountability: "Immunity" and its Systemic Fallout

Ian Millhiser's analysis delves into the legal underpinnings of this perceived impunity, particularly the concept of "immunity" as it relates to ICE agents. He clarifies that the notion of "absolute immunity," as suggested by some political figures, is a misapplication of legal doctrine. Absolute immunity, in civil lawsuits, typically applies to the President, judges, and prosecutors, not to law enforcement officers like ICE agents.

However, Millhiser explains a more relevant, though still contested, legal principle: the doctrine established in In re Neagle (1890). This precedent generally shields federal law enforcement officers from state prosecution when acting within the scope of their duties. This doctrine, therefore, provides a significant, though not absolute, protection. Crucially, Millhiser points to a more recent Supreme Court case, Martin v. United States (2023), which has weakened the Neagle precedent, signaling that protections for federal officers against state prosecution are not absolute.

The implications of this legal ambiguity are profound. Millhiser argues that the vagueness introduced by Martin creates an opening for prosecutors. He states, "if I was a Minnesota state prosecutor, I could argue that shooting someone when they had their wheels turned against you and they weren't a threat to you is not necessary and proper in the discharge of federal law enforcement, and therefore a prosecution should be allowed." Conversely, an ICE agent's attorney could argue the opposite. This legal uncertainty, coupled with the apparent federal sabotage of investigations--such as the state police being excluded and the US Attorney's office reportedly considering focusing on the victim's widow--creates a system where accountability is not just difficult, but actively obstructed.

The breakdown of established norms, where prosecutorial decisions are increasingly influenced by political considerations rather than neutral legal reasoning, further exacerbates the problem. Millhiser observes, "there's no question here that the Justice Department is behaving in a political matter and it's a serious problem." This selective enforcement, contrasted with the lenient approach to January 6th offenders, leaves many Americans feeling that the law is not applied equally, leading to a deep-seated distrust in the legal system's ability to provide justice.

The Downstream Effects: From Disruption to Durable Advantage

The community's response in Minneapolis, while fraught with immediate risk, illustrates a form of systems thinking aimed at creating downstream effects that can, over time, yield a durable advantage. By actively disrupting ICE operations, observers aim to:

• Deter Immediate Enforcement: The presence of observers and cameras can make ICE agents less likely to initiate stops or demand documentation, thus preventing immediate harm to individuals. This is the immediate benefit, the visible problem solved in the moment.
• Shift ICE Tactics: When direct enforcement is met with resistance, ICE may be forced to alter its approach. McVann notes that ICE agents have shifted to smaller groups and quicker arrests, attempting to evade community response. This is the system adapting, but not necessarily improving.
• Expose Systemic Flaws: The aggressive responses from ICE--such as retaliatory home visits and arrests of observers--serve to highlight the agency's disregard for civil liberties and the lengths to which it will go to avoid scrutiny. This exposes the hidden costs of their operations.
• Build Community Resilience: Each instance of ICE overreach, while terrifying, can also strengthen the resolve of the community and drive more people to participate in resistance efforts. The killing of Renee Gude, McVann notes, "has really only strengthened the resolve of a lot of the people who are already involved in this and has driven more people to try to join the movement." This is where immediate discomfort can lead to lasting advantage, as collective action grows stronger in the face of adversity.

The advantage here is not in immediate comfort or a quick win, but in the slow, arduous process of building a sustained counter-pressure. The effort required to organize, to patrol, to document, and to face potential retaliation is significant. This is precisely why it can create a competitive advantage: "most teams won't wait," or in this context, most individuals or agencies won't sustain the effort required for long-term systemic change when immediate discomfort is high. The community's willingness to endure this discomfort and invest time in these proactive measures, even without guaranteed success, creates a persistent challenge to ICE operations that a purely reactive legal approach might not achieve.

The Unpopular but Durable Path: Embracing Difficulty for Lasting Change

The insights from this conversation underscore a critical principle: true systemic change often arises from confronting difficulty, not avoiding it. The community's strategy of disrupting ICE operations, while dangerous and legally precarious, is an example of embracing immediate discomfort for potential long-term gain.

• Embrace Proactive Disruption: Instead of waiting for ICE actions and then seeking legal recourse, community members are actively engaging in surveillance and documentation to deter enforcement before it occurs. This shifts the dynamic from reactive to proactive.
• Document and Share Everything: The act of recording ICE interactions is crucial. This data serves as evidence, educates the public, and can be used to challenge ICE narratives and legal claims.
• Understand the Legal Landscape, But Don't Be Paralyzed By It: While legal doctrines like Neagle and Martin create ambiguity, they also offer potential avenues for challenge. Prosecutors must be prepared to argue that actions, even by federal officers, are not "necessary and proper" if they are criminal or abusive.
• Build Robust Rapid Response Networks: As ICE escalates tactics, rapid response networks must adapt. This involves not only notification but also coordinated action, including physical presence and documentation, to create a deterrent effect.
• Recognize the Political Nature of Enforcement: The selective application of law enforcement and the weaponization of legal terms like "immunity" and "terrorism" highlight the political motivations behind ICE actions. Understanding this allows for more effective counter-strategies.
• The Long Game of Accountability: True accountability may not come through immediate legal charges. It may be built through sustained pressure, public exposure, and the erosion of the perceived impunity of law enforcement agencies. This requires patience and a commitment to enduring discomfort.
• Focus on the "Necessary and Proper" Clause: When ICE agents' actions are questioned, the critical legal battleground may be whether their conduct was truly "necessary and proper" for discharging their federal duties. This requires careful examination of each incident.

The conversation between McVann and Millhiser reveals that the assertion of "immunity" by ICE is not merely a legal defense but a systemic strategy that actively undermines accountability. The community's response, though fraught with risk, represents a powerful example of consequence-mapping and systems thinking, demonstrating that enduring advantage is often forged in the crucible of immediate difficulty and sustained, organized resistance.

This blog post is based on a conversation from the podcast "Today, Explained," episode "Can anyone stop ICE?". The insights are attributed to reporter Madison McVann and legal analyst Ian Millhiser.