Hannah Rosen

And as you've watched the administration respond to this particular case, have you seen them kind of preempt some of these arguments?

Because they're speaking in very specific language about force, the correct use of force, all this kind of stuff.

Right.

So they can spin a public narrative, but it doesn't necessarily affect or determine what what happens in the actual courts.

Exactly.

I guess I have a fundamental question, which is why is the law designed this way?

Like, why is it important for states to be able to hold the federal government accountable in certain cases?

So I have heard the administration put out statements to state officials, just sort of warning them against taking state action.

It's interesting because with law enforcement actions, at least most recently, it's been the opposite.

It's been federal government putting pressure on states to hold local police departments accountable, like in George Floyd's death, for example.

And now we have this inversion, like the states trying to put a check on federal officers.

How does that inversion change the power dynamic here?

Looking back at the history, is there a case, a moment, an instance, which gives you hope about this situation, where something or someone or some state has risen to the occasion in a way that we can look to now and think, oh, that's the model?

I think what's challenging about this particular moment is that the federal government didn't just forgo investigating whether the shooting was justified.

Now they seem to be opening an investigation into Becca Good, the widow of Renee Good.

So what do you make of all that?

The federal government's just absolute definitive stance.

Well, Brenna, thank you so much for explaining this all to us and its implications.

So in short, no, federal agents such as ICE officers do not have absolute immunity, despite what the Trump administration says.

States can prosecute federal officers, although we're not used to seeing that lately.