Your fact-checks will appear here
The doctrine that limits state prosecution of federal officers, rooted in Supreme Court decisions like In re Neagle, and its application and refinement by lower courts and statutes.
Federal agents do not enjoy blanket or “absolute” immunity from state criminal prosecution; instead the Constitution and courts recognize a narrower Supremacy Clause immunity for acts authorized and n...
The doctrine that limits state prosecution of federal officers is rooted in a small set of decisions—most notably —and has been applied and refined by lower courts and statutes that permit removal of ...
The doctrine that can shield federal officers from state criminal prosecution is rooted in the Supremacy Clause and was first articulated in In re Neagle , but the Supreme Court’s recent decision in M...
—principally in civil suits and in criminal prosecutions by states—have substantially narrowed routes to accountability for officers accused of excessive force, often preventing trials or damages even...
Yes — a state prosecution of ICE agent Jonathan Ross is legally possible, but it faces substantial evidentiary, procedural and political obstacles that make it uncertain whether Minnesota prosecutors ...
Courts have a mixed but well‑charted record when state convictions of high‑profile federal officeholders are challenged: the U.S. Supreme Court can review state‑court interpretations of federal law (d...