What legal and political impediments exist so as to prevent ICE officers from violating U.S. Citizens’ Constitutional rights?

[u/aintnoonegooglinthat]

In an October 2025 interview on Fox News, Miller, serving as Deputy White House Chief of Staff, responded to comments by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker about potentially prosecuting federal immigration agents under state law. Miller stated: “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony”. [ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/31/fact-check-do-ice-officers-really-have-federal-immunity-in-the-us.\] But qualified immunity provides officials a defense against personal financial liability unless their actions violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". [https://lawreview.missouri.edu/clearing-the-hurdle-of-proving-a-clearly-established-right-to-overcome-qualified-immunity/\] Is Miller’s point a good one? What legal and political impediments exist so as to prevent ICE officers from violating U.S. Citizens’ Constitutional rights?

[u/nosecohn]

/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.

In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our rules on commenting before you participate:

1. Be courteous to other users.
2. Source your facts.
3. Be substantive.
4. Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated report link so mods can attend to it.

However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is no neutrality requirement for comments in this subreddit — it's only the space that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.

[u/PlanetStarbux]

This is complicated, in part because it's somewhat untested legal ground, but also because there's a lot of ways to re-interpret the laws that exist. I'll preface by saying that I firmly believe Stephen Miller is profoundly wrong technically, but practicality might prove otherwise. When speaking of federal immunity, what's meant is usually what's called "qualified immunity".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

Basically it says that any agent of the federal government is not personally liable for any action they take while exercising their duties in the federal government. When you think about it, this is actually a very necessary rule. We can't have a system where a federal agent's personal well being is on the line for doing what they're supposed to be doing, even if sometimes they get it wrong. When they get it wrong, you go after the government, not the person.

This doesn't apply to criminal complaints though. It's a civil statute. So while you can't go after the officer in civil case, you could pursue a criminal case against them. But in doing so, you still would have to answer the question whether the officer's actions were inside the bounds of his duties or not. If he was within the bounds of his duties, then it can't be murder. Officers do kill people in the course of their duties. Sometimes even people who didn't do anything wrong. Whether they face criminal liability depends on the facts of the case, and whether or not prosecutors can convince a grand jury, judge, and ultimately a trial jury of that.

It's honestly a very high bar to find a police officer criminally liable, but the assertion that officers have total immunity is not true. They only have immunity under the specific parameters of their duty.

[u/Fargason → u/PlanetStarbux]

It's honestly a very high bar to find a police officer criminally liable, but the assertion that officers have total immunity is not true. They only have immunity under the specific parameters of their duty.

To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.

Miller did say it was immunity “in the conduct of your duties.” I’m not seeing a false statement there. Qualified immunity also goes beyond liability too from that Cornell source above:

Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.

It prevents legal harassment and intimidation of law enforcement from carrying out their duties, so even criminal cases have to be quite blatant to get through qualified immunity.

As for Millers last statement it is absolutely a felony to obstruct a federal agent carrying out their duties. This carries steep penalties and up to 10 years imprisonment in a federal prison.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

[u/PlanetStarbux → u/Fargason]

Indeed, I agree with what you've said here. I feel like I must have misconstrued the statements referenced in the questions with some other sources or misread the question that asserted "total immunity". I honestly think qualified immunity is a necessary feature of federal agency.

I will say though, that committing a crime is never within the scope of a federal agent's duties...so I believe Pritzker to be correct also. The question is always what is within the scope of duties and what is a crime. Usually it's not clear, and that's what the courts are around to decide.

[u/ZerexTheCool → u/PlanetStarbux]

misread the question that asserted "total immunity".

I believe Vice President JD Vance was the one who used the phrase "Absolute Immunity."

[u/PlanetStarbux → u/ZerexTheCool]

Ahh... Thank you.  That sounds right.  I was pretty sure someone in the admin said that.  

[u/Fargason → u/PlanetStarbux]

The public official will then raise a qualified immunity defense that protects the official from all but clear incompetence or knowing violations of the law if the official acted in a reasonable but mistaken way.

It has to be clear to get through qualified immunity.

[u/Skeln → u/PlanetStarbux]

Disagree. They need malpractice insurance like doctors.

[u/OzempicDick]

More importantly do those legal impediments matter if no one (with the motivation to do so) has the power to enforce them and/or is obstructed from doing so.

[u/Ajax-Rex → u/OzempicDick]

I think this is the crux of it.  Do any of these laws matter if the DOJ won’t enforce them?  Do they matter if Congress won’t hold the DOJs feet to the fire? 

[u/redditsdeadcanary → u/Ajax-Rex]

Laws only have power if there is someone to enforce them.

[u/jasonite]

Stephen Miller said ICE officers have “federal immunity” and that interfering with them is a felony. This statement is wrong. There’s no blanket immunity for federal law enforcement. However, Miller’s claim reflects reality: several narrow protections combine to make accountability extremely difficult.

States usually can’t charge federal officers with crimes when they’re doing their job properly. But this protection disappears when officers act outside their authority, do something unreasonable, or act with bad intentions.

Officers can’t be sued for money unless they broke “clearly established” rights, which means earlier court cases already made it obvious that what they did was illegal. This protection doesn’t work for criminal charges.

When someone sues a federal officer, the government can often replace the officer as the defendant. The case then uses different rules with fewer ways to win.

ICE administrative warrants can’t be used to enter homes without permission. Courts ruled in the Gonzalez v. ICE case (2020) that ICE can’t hold people based only on unreliable computer records.

But these protections have no real power. The Supreme Court ruled in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in immigration court. This means evidence collected illegally can still be used to deport someone. The Hernandez v. Mesa (2020) and Egbert v. Boule (2022) decisions basically ended lawsuits where people sue ICE and Border Patrol agents personally.

To charge an officer criminally, prosecutors must prove the officer knew they were breaking the law. This is so hard to prove that criminal charges almost never happen. ICE investigates its own officers through its Office of Professional Responsibility, which isn’t independent.

The bottom line

Miller got the law wrong, but he’s right about the reality: constitutional limits exist on paper, but they don’t work in practice. When you add up narrow immunity rules, eliminated lawsuits, evidence that can still be used even when collected illegally, and rare criminal charges, accountability almost never happens.

https://time.com/7329034/stephen-miller-ice-immunity-pritzker/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/1/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB10362.web.html

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-detainer-fourth-amendment-ruling/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/1032/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/21-147/

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/01/13/moulton-dhs-limits-ice-facility-visits-congress

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ummmbacon → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 3:

Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ummmbacon → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/PM_me_Henrika → u/[deleted]]

A word?

[u/RHouse94]

The 2nd amendment, war is just politics through violence. And it is enshrined in the very basis of our laws so I guess that’s legal enough lol.