you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
click here To read the Spanish version of this article, go to
State and local law enforcement in Minnesota investigating the murder of Alex Preti by federal agents announced they have gone to court to prevent federal agents from destroying or tampering with evidence. Video shows Preti being unarmed and restrained on the ground as he was shot multiple times over the weekend, part of an escalating pattern of violence by federal agents across the country.
It is difficult for states to prosecute federal law enforcement officers, especially if federal authorities obstruct an investigation. At the same time, states have more power than people realize.
The law makes clear that federal employees are not completely exempt from state laws, despite suggestions to the contrary from Vice President J.D. Vance and other Trump administration officials. Rather, state prosecutions are governed by a legal framework called the Supremacy Clause Waiver, which states: About Neaglean 1890 Supreme Court decision.
The incident itself is an outrageous story. David Neagle was appointed as a deputy U.S. marshal to protect U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field after former California Supreme Court Chief Justice David Terry pointed a knife at Field in court and repeatedly threatened to kill him. (While serving as a circuit judge, Field had ruled against Terry and his wife in a case against him.) When Terry later attacked Field on a train in California, Neagle shot and killed him. The local sheriff arrested Neagle for killing the unarmed assailant.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Neagle was performing his duties as a U.S. marshal and “did no more than what was necessary and proper,” and that Mr. Neagle was immune from state prosecution. The court explained that ruling otherwise would allow states to interfere with the operation of federal law.
It is not difficult to see how state criminal prosecutions can undermine legitimate federal law enforcement. In 1964, for example, local Mississippi authorities attempted to prosecute federal marshals who used tear gas to quell riots that erupted over James Meredith’s acceptance as the first black student to attend the University of Mississippi. quotation About Neaglea federal district court blocked state prosecutors.
But on the other hand About Neagle While establishing strong protections for federal employees, it also leaves states open to prosecution if employees act beyond what is “necessary and appropriate” to do their jobs. For example, in 2001, the Ninth Circuit allowed an Idaho county prosecutor to proceed with a manslaughter case against an FBI sniper who killed an unarmed woman during an infamous raid on a cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho. The court noted the disputed facts as to whether the agent acted reasonably and ruled that the prosecution should be allowed. The case was later dropped after the prosecutor retired. The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment.
And back in 1906, in a case similar to the Pretty murder, the Supreme Court allowed the state of Pennsylvania to prosecute two soldiers accused of killing a civilian accused of stealing from a federal armory. Witnesses said the man had already been captured by the time the soldiers opened fire. If true, the court wrote, “it cannot reasonably be argued that the fatal shot was fired in fulfillment of a duty imposed by federal law.” Similarly, during Prohibition, federal courts gave the go-ahead for state prosecutors to claim that federal agents used unreasonable force in the line of duty.
What would actually happen if Minnesota moved forward with prosecuting federal officers? If a police officer were to claim immunity from the Supremacy Clause, the state would need to show that the officer’s conduct was off-duty, or that the conduct was unreasonable or illegal (or that there is a factual issue on these issues early in the case).
Under current law, a defendant who claims immunity from the supremacy clause would also have the right to dismiss the charges in federal court. That means while the case will continue to be prosecuted by state authorities, a federal judge will likely oversee the case and consider any immunity claims.
They’ll have their hands full. Since the Supreme Court last considered supremacy clause immunity cases in 1920, lower courts have taken different approaches to important questions, such as what factors are involved in assessing whether a police officer’s actions were necessary and appropriate. This means, among other things, that such prosecutions are likely to proceed slowly and require extensive conferences and appeals.
However, if a defendant is convicted in such a case, it would be a state crime and therefore not subject to the president’s pardon power.
While federal agents may think they are operating with impunity, the availability of state prosecutions is an important reminder. This means that each state has the means to hold federal employees accountable.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief state court report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon When can states prosecute federal officials?Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 27, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/when-can-states-prosecute-federal-agents
