Your fact-checks will appear here
A legal defense against state prosecution that creates primary responsibility for accountability on the Department of Justice.
Federal control over investigations of officer-involved shootings by federal agents rests on a mix of constitutional supremacy, federal criminal statutes, and prosecutorial discretion, but states reta...
State prosecutors have at times moved to charge federal agents for deadly or abusive conduct, but those efforts collide with constitutional, procedural and evidentiary walls—most notably Supremacy Cla...
The ’s written and internal memoranda create the legal and evidentiary framework prosecutors use to decide whether federal agents who kill are criminally liable, by defining when deadly force is permi...
State prosecutors have pursued charges against federal officers in a range of cases—from alleged homicides and kidnappings to corruption and perjury—but those prosecutions frequently collide with fede...
State prosecutors can — and historically have — bring criminal charges against federal immigration agents, but success hinges on legal thresholds and political realities: courts may bar prosecutions w...
Local participation in federal immigration enforcement runs into a tangle of constitutional doctrines: anti‑commandeering limits on federal power, the Supremacy Clause and preemption concerns, Fourth ...
State prosecutors have succeeded in bringing charges against federal law-enforcement officers only when the officers’ conduct fell outside the scope of their federal duties — for example, alleged pers...