The DHS sent out a message this week to ICE officers, stating that they have “federal immunity” while doing their jobs and warned that anyone who interferes is committing a felony. This claim has been supported by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, but legal scholars believe it exaggerates the actual protections for federal officers.
“REMINDER,” DHS wrote in a post on X, sharing Miller’s comments. “To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anyone who touches you, tries to stop you, or obstructs you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one—no city official, state official, illegal alien, leftist protester, or domestic insurgent—can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations.”
Miller mentioned that the Justice Department has “made clear” it will go after officials who cross “that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers.”
This post came during renewed tensions between federal immigration authorities and state and local officials about the extent of state power to investigate or prosecute federal officers after confrontations during enforcement actions. In Minneapolis, the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration officer has sparked a jurisdiction dispute. Federal authorities are limiting state investigators’ access to evidence, while Minnesota officials push for an independent review.
REMINDER. “To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one—no city official, no state official,… pic.twitter.com/xoWDjOctLe
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) January 13, 2026
Legal experts note that there is no general “federal immunity” that protects ICE agents from all criminal liability. Instead, federal officers may rely on what is often called Supremacy Clause immunity. This doctrine can prevent state prosecutions if an officer acted within federal authority and the conduct was “necessary and proper” for federal duties. This protection depends on specific circumstances and can be challenged in court.
Time magazine, in its report on Miller’s earlier comments, quoted legal analysts stating that this doctrine is not absolute. It does not protect agents who act beyond their authority or use unlawful force.
Lawfare published an analysis after the interview DHS is promoting. It pointed out that recent public statements have not aligned with the law, highlighting that federal officers do not have blanket immunity from state criminal prosecutions.
State officials opposed to federal enforcement practices have also noted the limits of federal power. In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison have criticized the federal response to the Good shooting and plan to pursue a state-led investigation, while federal officials argue the state lacks jurisdiction.
Prosecuting federal officers can still face significant hurdles. Even if a state brings charges, federal officers have procedural options to move a case to federal court. Prosecutors must also address claims that an officer was acting within their official duties, as legal commentators have highlighted.
Civil lawsuits provide another path for accountability, but they can be challenging as well. Time reported that lawsuits against federal officers often encounter qualified immunity defenses and other limitations, even when families or local officials claim that the officers acted unlawfully.
DHS did not announce any new policy change in its post. The agency did not reply to questions about whether it was telling officers that they cannot be prosecuted under any circumstances, as opposed to referencing the narrower Supremacy Clause doctrine described by legal experts.
