MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — The family of Renee Nicole Good, 37, killed in her vehicle during an encounter with a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, Jan. 7, is weighing civil action as public anger over the shooting grows. For people who want to sue ICE agents after a fatal encounter, the law offers only narrow paths — and most are designed to limit how, when and whether the government can be hauled into court, Jan. 20, 2026.
Federal officials have said the agent fired in self-defense, while Minneapolis leaders have disputed that account and pointed to witness video. A detailed account of what officials said and what video appeared to show is in Reuters’ report on Good’s killing.
Why it’s hard to sue ICE agents: FTCA vs. Bivens
When local police are accused of violating constitutional rights, families often sue under a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983. That statute generally does not apply to federal officers. For those trying to sue ICE agents, the two main tracks are a claim against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act and a personal-capacity constitutional suit under Bivens.
The FTCA route: how to sue ICE agents by suing the U.S.
The Federal Tort Claims Act, or FTCA, is Congress’ limited waiver of “sovereign immunity,” the doctrine that usually blocks lawsuits against the federal government. In many situations, it also means you can’t sue a federal officer for state-law tort claims the way you might sue a private person — the case is steered toward the United States instead.
The process starts inside the agency, not in court. Claims are generally barred unless they are presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years, and any lawsuit must be filed within six months after the agency’s final denial, under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
Even when a claim clears that gate, the FTCA is a limited remedy: no jury trial, no punitive damages, and damages are tied to the state law where the incident occurred. The government can also invoke statutory exceptions — including the discretionary-function bar and limits on intentional torts, with a law-enforcement carveout — in 28 U.S.C. § 2680, and argue that an agent’s use of force was legally justified. Those constraints are why lawyers in the Good case have described the process as “byzantine” and time-consuming; a concise breakdown of what makes it hard to sue ICE agents through the FTCA is in this Reuters legal explainer.
The Bivens route: when people try to sue ICE agents personally
Bivens actions seek damages directly from a federal officer for violating the Constitution, named for a 1971 Supreme Court case. But the Supreme Court has narrowed that remedy for decades and has been especially reluctant to allow new Bivens claims in contexts tied to immigration enforcement.
In Egbert v. Boule, the court refused to extend Bivens to claims against a border agent tied to immigration-related activity, reinforcing that judges should hesitate before creating new damages remedies without Congress. For many plaintiffs, that decision is the first wall they hit when they try to sue ICE agents as individuals.
The story of that narrowing is long-running. After Ziglar v. Abbasi, Stanford Law’s 2017 analysis argued the decision would make Bivens expansion harder. In 2020, SCOTUSblog’s review of Hernández v. Mesa covered the court’s rejection of a damages suit over a shooting. And in 2022, SCOTUSblog’s analysis of Egbert described how the decision further constricted Bivens claims.
What accountability looks like when you can’t sue ICE agents
If families cannot realistically sue ICE agents personally — and face a constrained FTCA path against the United States — accountability often shifts to other systems: criminal investigations, internal discipline, inspector general reviews and congressional oversight. Those processes can produce answers, but they can also be slow, less transparent and dependent on federal decision-makers.
That is the uncomfortable bottom line behind the question “how to sue ICE agents” after a deadly shooting: the legal system may allow compensation in limited circumstances, but it often makes individual civil accountability for federal officers the hardest part to reach.
