“Feels Like a Cover-Up”: Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Slams Trump Admin over Deadly ICE Crackdown

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison asserts that the 'single largest deployment' of federal immigration officers in one place at one time in Minnesota, a state not high in immigration, is unjustified and constitutes 'retribution' from the president. He argues this deployment is a coercive tactic to force Minnesota to abandon its sanctuary policies and act as an extension of ICE, violating federalism and the 10th Amendment.

Ellison states, 'This is the single largest deployment of immigration officers in one place at one time in a state that does that is not even in the top of immigration. What justifies this disproportionate flood? Nothing legitimate. But the president has been clear. Retribution.' He adds, 'The federal government cannot coerce us into doing it their way.'

Ellison claims federal authorities are actively obstructing state investigations into the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Prey by ICE agents. This includes transferring agents out of state, refusing to confirm body camera usage or share footage, and blocking local investigators from reviewing evidence, which Ellison describes as a 'cover-up'.

Ellison states, 'Feels like a cover up to me.' He details federal actions: 'frustrate your capability of prosecuting us by grabbing evidence, by spiriting people away out of the state, by allowing our agents to wear masks so they're never accountable.' He also mentions a federal lawyer assuring footage preservation but not confirming sharing with Minnesota authorities.

Both Attorney General Ellison and Professor Steven Vladic affirm that states possess the constitutional right to criminally charge and investigate federal agents who commit crimes within their borders, despite federal attempts to frustrate such efforts. This principle is highlighted as a critical mechanism for accountability when the federal government fails to act.

Ellison states, 'The state government has the right to criminally charge anyone, including a federal agent, who commits a crime in our state. That is not even in serious question.' Professor Vladic adds, 'There's no categorical bar to states using their courts, using their laws, whether it's for damages or for criminal prosecutions as a means of holding federal officers accountable.'

Professor Steven Vladic explains that the Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the ability of citizens to bring damages claims directly against federal officers for constitutional violations (known as 'Bivens' claims). This erosion of remedies means there is less deterrence for federal officers from violating rights, making state-level prosecutions even more critical.

Vladic notes, 'The Supreme Court has actually done a complete about face and has made Bivens virtually impossible to bring these kinds of damages claims.' He concludes, 'The Supreme Court has really hollowed out the spectre of damages remedies, which means not only that you can't recover after the fact... it also means there's nothing deterring these officers from violating your rights.'