Myths, Misinformation, and Minneapolis

Besides not knowing what habeas corpus means, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has had problems.

Daniel Dale at CNN:

Top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have responded to the killing of Alex Pretti by the Border Patrol in Minneapolis on Saturday with a torrent of claims that are either contradicted by video footage or unsupported by any evidence presented so far.

• Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed Pretti “attacked” officers, an assertion echoed by FBI Director Kash Patel, but no footage available as of Sunday afternoon shows Pretti committing any attack.
• Noem claimed Pretti was “brandishing” a gun, but no available footage shows Pretti even holding a weapon in his hand at the scene; a concealed gun appeared to be taken from his waistband area by a federal agent moments before he was shot.
• White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller referred to Pretti as “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents,” Vice President JD Vance reposted this claim, and Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino (and the Department of Homeland Security in a social media post) said it “looks like” Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” But nobody has shown any evidence that Pretti sought to kill anyone, let alone perpetrate a massacre.
• Patel suggested that Pretti broke the law by carrying a concealed gun at a protest, but the Minneapolis police chief said Pretti had a permit to carry the gun and was allowed to have it on him as he was protesting in a public place.

  Tiffany HsuStuart A. Thompson and Steven Lee Myers at NYT:

Across social media, pro-Trump influencers and others muddled the evidence of the killing of a nurse in Minneapolis on Saturday with social media posts that included misdirection and fabricated content.

While verified videos and witnesses showed how federal immigration agents tackled and shot Alex Pretti, 37, the posts tried to warp the events, including in ways intended to support the Trump administration’s claims that Mr. Pretti was at fault for his own death. Some posts smeared him or portrayed him as a radical activist.

Nick Sortor, a pro-Trump influencer with 1.4 million followers on X, incorrectly identified Mr. Pretti, a U.S. citizen, as an unauthorized immigrant. Jack Posobiec, a Trump loyalist with 3.3 million followers on X, falsely described Mr. Pretti as having “run up on police” and drawn a gun — claims that other users on X corrected in an appended note. Photos of different men — dressed in drag or shirtless at a street festival — were wrongly identified as Mr. Pretti and shared widely.

Mr. Posobiec, Mr. Sortor and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

No Absolute Immunity for Feds Who Break State Laws

Our chapter on federalism includes an extensive discussion of crime.

Devan Cole at CNN:

Vice President JD Vance’s claim Thursday that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis is “protected by absolute immunity” drew immediate pushback from experts who said the legal landscape around a potential prosecution is far more complicated.

Speaking at the White House, Vance appeared to try to stymie any efforts by Minnesota prosecutors to pursue a criminal case against the agent.

“The precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action – that’s a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job,” Vance said, echoing others in the Trump administration. “I’ve never seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by a judge.”

That assessment was quickly met with skepticism by experts who said the vice president was overstating the law around immunity for federal officials. Vance’s comments come amid nationwide protests of ICE officials and criticism of the agency’s efforts to carry out a historic deportation campaign with little to no oversight.

Bryna Godar at Lawfare:

As a baseline, federal officials are not immune from prosecution for state crimes just because they committed the offense while on the job. Some state prosecutions of federal officials that have gone ahead include a manslaughter charge against a postal worker who hit and killed someone while delivering mail, murder charges against military members who shot and killed a man they believed was stealing copper fixtures, and murder charges against federal officers who killed a passenger when shooting their guns at a departing car they alleged was illegally transporting whiskey.

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that “[a]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment.” So when a federal officer—be it an ICE agent or a postal worker—violates a state criminal law, they can potentially face prosecution. This could include charges for trespass, breaking and entering, kidnapping, assault, manslaughter, murder, or a host of other state-law crimes.

What happens next is where things get complicated. Generally, federal officers will seek to move their case into federal court. They will claim that they are immune from prosecution under the Supremacy Clause, and a federal court will decide whether the state’s prosecution can proceed. If it does proceed, it will typically play out in federal—not state—court, though state or local officials will still prosecute the case. And if the trial ultimately leads to a conviction, that conviction will be for a state—not federal—crime. This is an important point in state-federal conflicts because the president’s pardon power extends only to federal crimes, not state crimes. (For a more thorough analysis of the procedural elements, see this Lawfare article.)

Breaking down the immunity piece, federal officials prosecuted for state crimes generally claim that they are immune from prosecution under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is “the supreme Law of the Land” and overrides state law when the two conflict. Courts have interpreted this provision to preclude state prosecutions when federal officials are reasonably carrying out lawful federal duties. For example, in the foundational case on Supremacy Clause immunity from 1890, the Supreme Court concluded that California could not prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder where the marshal, who was assigned to protect a U.S. Supreme Court justice, shot and killed an attacker. In other examples, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2006 affirmed dismissal of a Wyoming trespassing prosecution against federal wildlife officers who accidentally entered private land while collaring wolves, and a federal district court in the 1960s ordered the dismissal of disorderly conduct charges against a U.S. Marshal for his actions quelling a segregationist riot at the University of Mississippi.

The theory behind Supremacy Clause immunity, as explained in the 2006 Tenth Circuit wolf-collaring opinion authored by then-Judge Michael McConnell, is that, “while state criminal law provides an important check against abuse of power by federal officials, the supremacy of federal law precludes the use of state prosecutorial power to frustrate the legitimate and reasonable exercise of federal authority.”

To strike this balance, federal courts have adopted a two-part test for Supremacy Clause immunity: The federal official’s actions must have been (a) authorized by federal law and (b) “necessary and proper” in fulfilling the official’s federal duties. In other words, if an officer’s actions are unauthorized, unlawful, unnecessary, or improper, the state prosecution poses no Supremacy Clause problem because it is not undermining the implementation of federal law.

In practice, the contours of this two-part test are often contested. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on Supremacy Clause immunity in more than 100 years, so the doctrine has been developed largely in lower federal courts.

An Incident in Minneapolis

 Zolan Kanno-Youngs at NYT:

Just hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Mr. Trump told a group of New York Times reporters that the woman was at fault because she had tried to “run over” the officer.

We were in the Oval Office for an interview with the president, and the unfolding situation in Minneapolis was high on our list of questions. As soon as we started asking him about the incident, he said: “I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either.”

When we pressed Mr. Trump on his conclusion that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, tried to run over the agent, he asked an aide to pull up the video on a laptop in an effort to prove his point.

“That was a vicious situation that took place,” Mr. Trump said, apparently referring to what federal officials have said was an effort by Ms. Good to run down an ICE agent.

...

Before the video began, Mr. Trump acknowledged the tragic nature of the shooting. “With all of it being said, no, I don’t like that happening,” he said, before pivoting to his common refrain of criticizing illegal immigration.

As a slow-motion surveillance video of the shooting played on the laptop, we told him that this angle did not appear to show an ICE officer had been run over.

“Well,” Mr. Trump said. “I — the way I look at it … ”

“It’s a terrible scene,” Mr. Trump said at the end of the video. “I think it’s horrible to watch. No, I hate to see it.”

But did this fatal shooting mean his ICE operation had gone too far? Mr. Trump sidestepped the question, instead blaming his predecessor's immigration policies.

But did this fatal shooting mean his ICE operation had gone too far? Mr. Trump sidestepped the question, instead blaming his predecessor's immigration policies.

 

Btw, those in my QT's smugly asserting that law enforcement has wide latitude to use lethal force against fleeing suspects may wish to consult Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

— Jessica Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@JessicaBRiedl) January 8, 2026

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) Argued: October 30, 1984 Decided: March 27, 1985 Annotation Primary Holding Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Polarized Legislatures

Timothy Williams at NYT:

Republicans continue to hold majorities in most of the nation’s state capitals, as they have in recent years, but Democrats now control six new legislative chambers, including the Minnesota House of Representatives. Along the way, though, Minnesota — where Republicans hold a narrow majority in the Senate — became the only remaining state in the nation where control of a legislature is divided.

Even in an era of single-party dominance in state legislatures, it is a stunning notion: It is the first time in more than a century that only one state has split control of its legislative chambers, and is one more indication of the depth of the nation’s bifurcated political sensibilities.

...
In the opening days, Democrats who have vaulted to positions of full control in their legislatures (Colorado, New Hampshire and New York), achieved parity (Minnesota), or solidified their power (California, Nevada and New Mexico, among others) have wasted little time.


In New Hampshire, one of 18 state legislatures controlled by Democrats after both of its legislative chambers flipped in 2018, lawmakers have already banned firearms in the House chamber over the objections of Republicans, and have voted to require every lawmaker to undergo sexual harassment awareness training. Up next, the Democrats say: a family medical leave bill.

In New York, where Democrats won full control of the Legislature, lawmakers have approved a bill that offers undocumented students access to state financial aid and scholarships and another that expands protections for the state’s abortion laws.

In Colorado, where Democrats took the Senate and already controlled the House, lawmakers have introduced bills to expand access to affordable health care, allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, and give 100 teachers as much as $5,000 a year each to help pay off college loans.

From NCSL:

 After legislative elections on Tuesday, Nov. 6, five legislative chambers flipped from Republican to Democratic. Democrats also took control of the tied Connecticut Senate and fully functional control of the New York Senate—it was a Democratic sweep. However, compared to past midterms, the gains were modest with Republicans maintaining a robust position in state legislatures.

	Republicans	Democrats
	Pre/post Election	Pre/post Election	Pre/post Election
Chambers (98 total)	65 / 61	31 / 37	tied: 2 / 0
Legislatures (49 total)	31 / 30	14 / 18	divided: 4 / 1
State Control (49 total, 1 undecided)	25 / 21	8 / 14	divided:  16 / 13

The big news is that Minnesota is the only state in the nation where the legislature is divided—the Senate remains in Republican control, and the House flipped to the Democrats. The last time there was only one divided state legislature was over 100 years ago in 1914.

Six legislative chambers flipped from Republicans to Democrats.

Autism and Medical Marijuana in Minnesota

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss alternative treatments.

From the Minnesota Department of Public Health:

Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dr. Ed Ehlinger today announced the decision to add autism spectrum disorders and obstructive sleep apnea as new qualifying conditions for the state’s medical cannabis program.

“Any policy decisions about cannabis are difficult due to the relative lack of published scientific evidence,” said Commissioner Ehlinger. “However, there is increasing evidence for potential benefits of medical cannabis for those with severe autism and obstructive sleep apnea.”

This year, as in years past, the Minnesota Department of Health used a formal petitioning process to solicit public input on potential qualifying conditions. Throughout June and July, Minnesotans were invited to submit petitions to add qualifying conditions. The process included public comments, a citizens’ review panel and a set of research summaries for each condition prepared by Minnesota Department of Health staff.

Petitioners put forward a total of 10 conditions for consideration this year, including anxiety disorders, autism, cortico-basal degeneration, dementia, endogenous cannabinoid deficiency syndrome, liver disease, nausea, obstructive sleep apnea, Parkinson’s disease and peripheral neuropathy. There were also petitions to add cannabis delivery methods including infused edibles and vaporizing or smoking cannabis flowers. These requests were not approved.

Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by sustained social impairments in communication and interactions, and repetitive behaviors, interests or activities. Patients certified for the program because of autism must meet the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5th edition) for autism. The health department’s autism research brief (PDF) found a growing body of research indicating that the human body’s endocannabinoid system may play a role in autism symptoms. In support of adding autism, the review panel report (PDF) noted the lack of effective drug treatments, the potentially severe side effects of current drug treatments and anecdotal evidence of Minnesota children with autism already receiving benefits from medical cannabis taken for other qualifying conditions.
...
Under current state rules, patients certified to have autism or obstructive sleep apnea will be newly eligible to enroll in the program on July 1, 2018 and receive medical cannabis from the state’s two medical cannabis manufacturers beginning Aug. 1, 2018. As with the program’s other qualifying conditions, patients will need advance certification from a Minnesota health care provider. More information on the program’s certification process is available from the Office of Medical Cannabis.

Hispanic State Population

In its new statistical portrait of the Hispanic population, Pew provides detail on geographic distribution:

A Romney Path Without Ohio or Virginia

It  is just possible for Romney to win without Ohio or Virginia.  An independent poll finds that Obama and Romney are in a statistical tie in Minnesota.  If he can carry that state, along with Iowa and Wisconsin, then Romney could get the minimum 270.

Here is a map from the RCP do-it-yourself page: