State vs. Federal Power: Minnesota Officials Challenge Federal Probe of Fatal ICE Shooting

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – January 09, 2026 – In the tense aftermath of a fatal shooting by a federal agent in south Minneapolis, a prominent local law firm has issued a forceful legal analysis, demanding a state-led investigation and asserting Minnesota's authority to bring charges. The move escalates a growing jurisdictional conflict between state officials and the federal government, raising fundamental questions about sovereignty, law enforcement immunity, and the pursuit of justice when a federal officer is involved in a civilian death.

The call to action comes from Sieben Edmunds Miller, a Minneapolis-based criminal defense firm. In a press release and detailed blog post published today, the firm argues that Minnesota's legal authority is not superseded by federal involvement. This legal challenge lands amid a firestorm of controversy following the January 7th death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a large-scale federal operation.

"When a death occurs in Minnesota, Minnesota law applies," the firm stated, emphasizing that the state has the full authority to investigate and prosecute potential violations of its criminal laws. According to attorney Kevin Sieben, "Minnesota authorities should not only investigate this incident, but should bring state charges if the evidence establishes that a crime has been committed."

A Question of Jurisdiction and Immunity

The core of the firm's argument rests on the principle of state sovereignty. The legal analysis asserts that federal employment does not place an individual beyond the reach of state criminal law. It is a direct rebuttal to the narrative pushed by some federal officials, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who publicly claimed Minnesota authorities "don't have any jurisdiction in this investigation."

Sieben Edmunds Miller contends that state and federal systems operate concurrently, and a federal review does not eliminate the state's responsibility. "The existence of a federal investigation does not eliminate the state's responsibility or authority to act," the analysis reads.

The firm also confronts the complex issue of law enforcement immunity, arguing that it is a legal shield with clear limits, not a blanket protection from scrutiny. Immunity, they explain, is not a barrier to investigation but rather a legal determination that can only be made after a thorough, fact-based inquiry. Whether the agent's use of force was justified is a factual question that cannot be answered by press conferences or political declarations.

This legal position is strongly supported by top Minnesota officials. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and State Attorney General Keith Ellison have already announced a joint effort to gather their own evidence, launching a public portal for witnesses to submit videos and information. "The law is clear: We do have jurisdiction to make this decision," Moriarty stated in a recent press conference, underscoring that the agent's federal status is irrelevant to the state's authority to review a death that occurred within its borders.

The Chauvin Precedent Looms Large

Drawing a powerful parallel, the law firm points to a landmark Minnesota case as a clear precedent: the state prosecution of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. The successful conviction of Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd demonstrated the state's capacity and willingness to hold law enforcement officers accountable for crimes committed in the line of duty, independent of a separate federal case.

"That case was not about politics or job titles. It was about whether the conduct violated Minnesota law," the firm's analysis notes. "The same principle applies here. The fact that an individual was acting in a federal capacity does not alter the state's authority to investigate whether a state crime occurred. Accountability under state law does not depend on the uniform worn or the agency involved."

This precedent now serves as a legal and political touchstone in the current crisis. The state's handling of the Chauvin case reshaped the national landscape for police accountability and has emboldened state leaders to assert their authority in the face of federal resistance. The FBI is currently leading the investigation into the shooting of Renee Good and has reportedly excluded the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) from the process, a move Governor Tim Walz said has caused him to have "significant doubt" about the fairness of the outcome.

National Narratives vs. Local Accountability

Compounding the jurisdictional clash is a war of words over the narrative surrounding the shooting. Within hours of the incident, senior federal officials, including Vice President JD Vance and DHS Secretary Noem, publicly framed the event as an act of "domestic terrorism," alleging the victim used her vehicle as a weapon and that the agent acted in self-defense. This immediate and high-level characterization has drawn sharp condemnation from local leaders and legal experts who argue it subverts due process.

Samuel Edmunds, a partner at Sieben Edmunds Miller, criticized this rush to judgment. "When political leaders rush to label a case before the facts are established, they undermine public confidence and the integrity of the investigation," Edmunds said. "Accountability requires restraint, evidence, and independent review, not political framing."

This sentiment is echoed on the ground in Minneapolis, where public trust has been severely shaken. The federal narrative has been met with fury and skepticism, particularly from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who dismissed the "domestic terrorism" label as "garbage." The shooting has sparked massive protests across the city, with demonstrators demanding transparency and the removal of ICE forces.

As the state and federal governments appear set on a collision course, the call for a local, independent investigation grows louder. Sieben Edmunds Miller insists that Minnesota officials are best positioned to handle the case, being closest to the community, the witnesses, and the evidence. The firm is urging state leaders to insist on full participation and to make clear that Minnesota's authority will not be sidelined in the pursuit of facts and justice.