Courtesy of Nadav Ben-David
Less than a month after Alex Pretti was shot and killed by two federal immigration agents, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) released a statement informing the public that the FBI had formally declined their request to access the evidence and information that the FBI collected. Although the BCA has made their willingness to complete a cooperative and joint investigation with the FBI clear, it has consistently been met with rejections.
This is not the only investigation into federal immigration agents that the FBI has restricted Minnesota state officials’ access to. Alongside Pretti’s death, the BCA explained in the same statement that it has been relentlessly attempting to engage in a cooperative investigation of the shooting and death of Renee Good alongside the injury of Julio Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by ICE agents.
Both the repeated barriers created by federal agencies and prevention of investigation of federal immigration agents at the state-level are cause for concern. Without state access providing adequate oversight, the investigations being done are prone to bias. If the average citizen or even our state officials are unable to follow the FBI’s investigations, we are left to wonder if the agents who have committed these atrocities will ever truly be held responsible for their crimes.
And, if these highly publicized point-blank shootings of American citizens can be washed away by the idea of a supposed federal investigation, what precedent does that set for the many less-publicized deaths of detainees in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Consider the lack of adequate investigation into the 32 detainees that died under ICE custody in 2025, the highest number recorded since 2004. As we follow the investigation and litigation around Pretti’s death, it is imperative that we remember what he died fighting for: the preservation of the rights of those being directly targeted by ICE.
The BCA was formed to prevent the biases that might arise when dealing with organizations that are headed by hand-picked members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet. However, these essential checks and balances are being ignored. This is especially important to recognize when representatives from the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and FBI have all made statements that imply preexisting attitudes towards Pretti’s case.
Take for example, FBI Director Kash Patel’s statement, made the day after Pretti’s death:
“You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have the right to break the law and incite violence.”
After an expert review, PBS confidently found that Pretti “was within his rights in Minnesota to do so.”
One might also be taken aback by statements made by Kristi Noem, secretary of DHS. The day after Pretti’s death, Noem was shockingly quick to make an accusatory statement, ignoring the need for an investigation after a shooting by DHS officers.
“This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement,” she said at a press conference.
Again, this narrative was disproven by The New York Times. Their analysis highlighted that “Pretti does not appear to pose a threat to agents,” in recorded footage of the incident. On top of that, they found that at no point during the assault on Pretti did he have his weapon in hand or reach for it.
After calls for Noem’s removal from her position for her statement by various Republican and Democratic lawmakers, Noem came to her own defense:
“We were being relayed information from on the ground from CBP agents and officers that were there.” She continued, “We were using the best information we had at the time.”
When it comes to the end of innocent civilians’ lives, one should not be able to simply use an organization’s clear disorganization and chaotic strategies as a scapegoat.
As addressed in an article published earlier this semester, the quickness with which the federal government has worked to spread lies about the victims is a clear sign that they are not working for the public interest. Indeed, it seems as if the government is asking us to consider ourselves lucky that Pretti’s death is being investigated at all, regardless of the heinous character assassination the federal government has put the late man through.
That is essential to remember when considering cases like Good’s, which we have heard almost nothing about since Vice President JD Vance publicly stated that the officer who shot her is “protected by absolute immunity.” Such comments show the audacious attitude of federal government officials when it comes to protecting ICE agents.
While Vance’s comments regarding Good’s killer were quickly publicly disputed by several law experts, it is certainly not easy to convict an ICE agent in a state court. This is because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Stanford Law Professor Robert Weisberg, the Supremacy Clause allows qualified immunity to any federal agent who can “put on a vaguely plausible argument that he acted reasonably, if mistakenly, given the state of the law at the time.”
If the state believed they could make an argument that the officer acted outside of reasonable bounds, the defendant could still ask the case to be taken to the federal court, in which federal judges would play a role in the oversight of the case outcomes. However, this by no means implies that the state should end attempts to convict these agents at the state level. Rather, it serves as a reminder of the many roadblocks prosecutors face. These delays only elongate the duration of such cases and investigations, and mean that U.S. residents must make an active effort to not let state officials forget that prosecution is important to us.
It is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to forget the atrocities committed by federal agents that we are constantly witnessing online and in our streets. These agents must be held accountable for their actions, and a new precedent must be established for those who believe that they are above the law. We must continue to protest, to document and to push for further investigations and charges against the unlawfulness of border patrol agents that are plaguing our communities.
About the Author
