>>> NOW, OUTRAGE OVER THE SURGING PRESENCE OF FEDERAL AGENTS IN MINNEAPOLIS CONTINUES AS THE UNITED STATES REELS FROM THE DEADLY SHOOTING OF RENEE GOOD BY AN I.C.E.

OFFICER LAST WEEK.

MINNESOTA AND ILLINOIS ARE NOW SUING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHILE NEW CALLS TO DEFUND I.C.E.

ARE EMERGING AMONGST DEMOCRATS.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ACTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOOD'S DEATH?

SIX FEDERAL PROSECUTORS QUIT YESTERDAY AFTER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PUSHED FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO RENEE GOOD'S WIDOW.

MIKE FOX IS A LEGAL FELLOW AT THE CATO INSTITUTE AND IN A NEW ARTICLE HE HIGHLIGHTS THAT THIS TRAGEDY AND ITS AFTERMATH ARE PART OF A WIDER TREND OF FEDERAL IMPUNITY, AS HE TELLS HARI SRINIVASAN.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANKS.

MIKE FOX, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

JUST THIS PAST WEEK RENEE GOOD WAS SHOT AND KILLED ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA BY A U.S.

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENT NAMED JONATHAN ROSS.

YOU WROTE RECENTLY IN AN OP-ED SOMETHING THAT KIND OF CAUGHT OUR EYE, WHICH WAS THAT THIS IS PART OF A PATTERN.

AND TELL US, WHAT IS THAT PATTERN?

>> YEAH, HARI, GOOD TO BE HERE.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET DATA FROM THE GOVERNMENT, FROM BORDER PATROL, FROM I.C.E., FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

THERE'S BEEN A PRETTY GOOD INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FROM THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," AND I TOOK WHAT THEY WROTE AND TRIED TO PARSE THROUGH.

AND FROM WHAT I CAN GATHER, SINCE JULY THE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, BE IT I.C.E.

OR BORDER PATROL, HAVE SHOT 13 TIMES AT INDIVIDUALS IN CARS.

OF THOSE THEY'VE HIT EIGHT PEOPLE.

TWO INCLUDING RENEE GOOD WERE KILLED.

SO ONE OF THE PATTERNS THAT'S EMERGED IN THESE CASES, AS SOON AS THE GOVERNMENT SHOOTS SOMEONE IN A VEHICLE, AND BY THE GOVERNMENT I'M REFERRING TO I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL, THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY TRICIA McLAUGHLIN, WHO'S THE COMMUNICATIONS GURU FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STARTS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FRAME THE NARRATIVE IN A WAY THAT THE AGENTS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT AND THE CIVILIANS ARE ALWAYS WRONG.

TRYING TO SANITIZE THEIR HANDS, PAINT THE PERSON WHO WAS SHOT AT AS BEING SOME HORRIFIC VIOLENT CRIMINAL.

THEY WERE ALREADY CALLING RENEE GOOD A DOMESTIC TERRORIST, TAKING THE SIDE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE ACCUSED OF KILLING THEM.

THE REALITY IS THERE WERE MANY INSTANCES WHERE THIS IS WHAT MS.

McLAUGHLIN WAS SAYING, AND IT'S BEEN OBJECTIVELY FALSE AND IT'S BEEN PROVEN FALSE.

WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE SHE'S ALLEGED PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED THESE HEINOUS CRIMES, ONLY FOR THE CASES TO FALL APART THE SECOND THEY GET INTO COURT.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WROTE ABOUT THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR OUR AUDIENCE.

YOU SAID, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE GOOD CASE IS CAN COMPOUNDED BY A LEGAL REGIME THAT ALL BUT ENSURES FEDERAL AGENTS REMAIN UNTOUCHABLE BY CIVIL DAMAGES LAWSUITS.

IF GOOD'S SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERS ATTEMPT TO SUE ROSS AND THE AGENTS INVOLVED IN HER SHOOTING FOR VIOLATING HER CIVIL RIGHTS, THEY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY FIND NO REMEDY IN A COURTROOM."

HOW?

>> IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

IF YOU PULL THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY USE OF FORCE GUIDELINES, WHICH WERE LAST UPDATED IN 2023, I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL ARE BOUND BY THOSE GUIDELINES.

THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THEM.

IT'S ALSO PRETTY OFFICE THAT I.C.E.

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY REMEDIAL MEASURES.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUNISH HIM, DOCK HIS PAY, FIRE HIM, DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO THE ONLY OTHER WAYS THAT WOULD BE TO HOLD HIM OR OTHER AGENTS, FEDERAL AGENTS ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS WOULD BE CRIMINAL CASE, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FEDERALLY PROSECUTE THIS, AND PROSECUTING AT THE STATE LEVEL POSES A NUMBER OF LEGAL CHALLENGES.

AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE INVESTIGATORS FROM THE -- THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS WITH THE FBI EVEN COOPERATE WITH THE STATE INVESTIGATORS TO GIVE THEM THE EVIDENCE AND THE TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERVIEWS AND BODY CAM FOOTAGE AND THINGS THAT WILL BE NECESSARY TO PURSUE A CRIMINAL CASE WHICH THEY CLEARLY ARE TRYING TO SCREEN MINNESOTA INVESTIGATORS OUT OF.

SO CIVIL DAMAGES WOULD BE WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK.

AND WHAT THAT IS IS THAT'S THE ABILITY TO GO INTO COURT AND SEEK MONEY DAMAGES WHEN YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

IN 1871 CONGRESS PASSED A LAW THAT'S COMMONLY KNOWN AS SECTION 1983, AND THAT LAW WAS PASSED FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR.

THERE WERE NEWLY FREED SLAVES IN THE SOUTH WHO HAD ALL THESE WONDERFUL RIGHTS ON PAPER BUT AS THEY WENT TO VINDICATE THEM OR TO EXERCISE THEM THEY WERE FINDING STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS IN THE SOUTH WERE PRECLUDING THOSE RIGHTS FROM BEING EXERCISED.

SO CONGRESS PASSED THIS LAW ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE CITIZENS TO GO INTO COURT AND SEEK MONETARY DAMAGES AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

THAT HAS NEVER BEEN EXTENDED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND YOU THINK ABOUT WHY, IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE.

RIGHT?

AT THE TIME IN THE 1870s THE ONES VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION WERE THE STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE SOUTH.

THEY WERE NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

BUT ALSO HISTORICALLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BEEN ONE OF ENUMERATED POWERS.

IT WAS VERY SMALL.

IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DO A WHOLE LOT.

FLASH FORWARD ABOUT 100 YEARS, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES.

SO IN 1965 THERE IS A GENTLEMAN NAMED WEBSTER BIVENS.

WEBSTER BIVENS IS IN HIS BROOKLYN APARTMENT MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS WHEN THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, WHICH WAS THE PRECURSOR TO THE D.E.A., OR THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, BARGED IN WITHOUT I AWARRANT, STRIP-SEARCHED HIM AND MADE AN AN ARREST.

MR.

BIVENS DECIDED TO TAKE HIS CASE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND SIX YEARS LATER THE COURT READ AN IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACTION TO SUE FEDERAL OFFICIALS FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS.

OVER THE YEARS THE COURT EXTENDED IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE COURT OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY RELUCTANT TO EXTEND BIVENS.

SOME OF THE MORE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WANT TO ACTUALLY GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY.

THERE WERE TWO CASES WITHIN THE PAST DECADE OR SO WHERE THE COURT COULD HAVE EXTENDED BIVENS TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS AND BOTH TIMES THE COURT DID NOT DO SO, CITING UNFOUNDED NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS.

IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING, OF COURSE, THAT THE CASES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW BY AND LARGE DON'T EVEN DEAL WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCE MANY.

MS.

GOOD WAS I AU.S.

CITIZEN.

THEY DEAL WITH STREET-LEVEL POLICING.

BUT BECAUSE THE COURT HAS SO WITHERED AWAY BIVENS AND NEVER EXTENDED IT TO THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT AND BECAUSE THE STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION SECTION 1983 ONLY APPLIES TO STATE AND LOCAL ACTORS, IF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY FEDERAL AGENTS LIKE I.C.E.

AGENTS OR BORDER PATROL AGENTS, YOU ARE WITHOUT RECOURSE TO GET INTO FEDERAL COURT.

AND THE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE IS ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT YOU SOMEHOW GET INTO FEDERAL COURT, LIKE IN SOME UTOPIAN WORLD WHERE I BECOME A FEDERAL JUDGE AND ALLOW THE CASE TO PROCEED, YOU'RE STILL NOT GOING TO GET RECOURSE BECAUSE THERE'S THIS DOCTRINE KNOWN AS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

AND THAT DOCTRINE WAS CREATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE 1960s AND IT STANDS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE STATUTE I MENTIONED EARLIER CALLED SECTION 1983.

AND WHAT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOES IS IT SAYS THAT UNLESS YOU CAN IDENTIFY A CASE WHERE THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED IN THE EXACT SAME JURISDICTION, SO UNLESS MS.

GOOD'S FAMILY COULD GO INTO COURT AND PROVE THAT AN AGENT, AN I.C.E.

AGENT VIOLATED SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, THAT THEIR LOVED ONE'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED IN THE 8th CIRCUIT, WHICH IS WHERE MINNESOTA STANDS, THEY HAVE NO REDRESS.

AND OF COURSE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ONLY MATTERS IF CONGRESS WERE TO CODIFY BIVENS OR IF THE COURT WERE TO RECOGNIZE A IMPLIED ROUTE TO SUE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AGENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO THESE TWO DOCTRINES WORKING TOGETHER MAKE IT ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER GET INTO FEDERAL COURT SEEKING CIVIL DAMAGES.

>> IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, HER FAMILY WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS FOR RECOURSE IF IT WAS A MINNEAPOLIS POLICE OFFICER OR A STATE POLICE OFFICER THAT DID THIS.

RIGHT?

AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT GIVEN THE WAY THAT THE LAWS ARE STRUCTURED TODAY, A FEDERAL AGENT CAN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT SHOOT SOMEONE AND NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, DEPENDING ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S INTERESTS.

>> YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO LET'S SAY INSTEAD OF BEING SHOT BY AN I.C.E.

AGENT SHE WAS SHOT BY A MINNEAPOLIS POLICE OFFICER.

RIGHT?

SHE COULD SUE.

THEY SHE COULD THEN GET INTO FEDERAL COURT.

BRING A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 1983.

OF COURSE UNLESS SHE COULD FIND ANOTHER CASE IN THE 8th CIRCUIT WHERE SOMEONE'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THE OFFICER WILL LIKELY FWRECHBT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

SO IT'S A MONUMENTAL BATTLE.

BUT AT LEAST THERE'S A WAY TO INITIALLY GET INTO COURT.

WHEREAS WITH THE FEDERAL AGENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS THERE'S NOT.

AND YEAH, I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED WHEN THEY SEE THE IMPUNITY THAT FEDERAL AGENTS CAN ACT WITH.

THEY CAN LITERALLY GUN A WOMAN DOWN ON A PUBLIC STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AND FACE ABSOLUTELY ZERO SEMBLANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

THAT SHOULD SHOCK PEOPLE TO THE CORE.

>> TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE OTHER CASES THAT HAVE HAPPENED INCLUDING SOME SHOOTINGS.

THERE'S A SHOOTING OF CARLITO RICARDO PARIAS IN OCTOBER IN LOS ANGELES.

ANOTHER CASE OF A WOMAN NAMED MIRAMAR MARTINEZ WHO WAS SHOT BY BORDER PATROL AGENTS IN CHICAGO.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THESE CASES AND HOW DO THEY FIT THE PATTERN THAT YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT?

>> YEAH, SO BOTH OF THOSE CASES YOU MENTIONED ARE NOTABLE.

AND THEY BOTH HAD THEIR CASES DISMISSED.

MS.

MARTINEZ WAS STOPPED -- OR HAD AN ENCOUNTER IN CHICAGO WHERE THEY, THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN, ALLEGED THAT SHE TRIED TO RUN OFFICERS OR FEDERAL AGENTS OFF THE ROAD, TRIED TO RAM THEM, JUSTIFYING THEM TO SHOOT AT HER.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THERE WAS VIDEO THAT SHOWED THAT THE AGENTS ACTUALLY TRIED TO SURROUND OR RAM HER VEHICLE.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC.

I HAVE NOT SEEN IT.

BUT THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE, WHICH THE JUDGE GRANTED.

AND THEN IN THE OTHER CASE THAT YOU MENTIONED, MR.

CARLITOS, HE HAD HIS CASE DISMISSED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE, BY U.S.

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS.

THEY WOULD NOT TURN OVER BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE TIMELY.

I BELIEVE THEY WERE ALSO IMPEDING HIS ABILITY TO INTERFACE WITH COUNSEL AND ASSIST IN HIS OWN DEFENSE.

THESE ARE SOME EGREGIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.

SO I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, EMPHASIZE THAT IT'S NOT JUST I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL WHO HOLD RESPONSIBILITY HERE.

IT'S ALSO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

I WAS A PUBLIC DEFENDER.

I WAS NEVER A PROSECUTOR.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU, IF I WANT TO BRING THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOWN ON SOMEONE, I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE AGENTS WHO ARE ALLEGING WHAT THEY DID ARE CREDIBLE AND BE SURE THAT THE CONDUCT THAT THEY ALLEGE ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND THAT I CAN PROVE IT IN COURT.

RIGHT?

SO IF I'M DISCOVERING VIDEOS THAT EXONERATE SOMEONE I SHOULD NOT BE CHARGING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THANKFULLY, FEDERAL JUDGES ARE BY AND LARGE FAITHFUL ADHERENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, ARE PUTTING A STOP TO IT.

>> I JUST WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO I ASTATEMENT TRICIA McLAUGHLIN MADE TO "TIME" MAGAZINE AFTER A SHOOTING.

SAID IT'S A PATTERN OF VEHICLES BEING USED AS WEAPONS BY VIOLENT AGITATORS TO ATTACK OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, WHETHER THEY BE ILLEGAL ALIENS OR U.S.

CITIZENS, ARE ASSAULTING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TURNING THEIR VEHICLES INTO WEAPONS TO ATTACK LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WITHIN MINUTES AND HOURS OF AN INCIDENT YOU SEE THE SPOKESPEOPLE OR EVEN LEADERSHIP COMING OUT BEFORE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE JUST TO GET THE FACTS ON THE GROUND OF WHAT HAPPENED.

I MEAN, IS THERE SORT OF -- IS THAT STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL?

>> OH, YEAH.

I MEAN, I THINK THE END GOAL IS TO TRY TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE THE GOOD GUYS AND MAKE ANYONE THEY DEAL WITH LOOK BAD, LOOK LIKE A DOMESTIC TERRORIST, PORTRAY A CERTAIN PERSPECTIVE.

THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL AGITATORS.

THEY'RE PEOPLE WITH EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORIES.

NOW, HAS I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL ARRESTED SOME VIOLENT OFFENDERS WITH EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORIES?

OH, YEAH.

THERE ARE SOME CASES ONGOING FOR SERIOUS CHARGES.

I WOULD NOTE, THOUGH, THAT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE CASES THAT I MENTIONED COMING FROM JULY HAS RESULTED IN A CRIMINAL CONVICTION OR A GUILTY PLEA.

NOW, OF COURSE THAT COULD BE BECAUSE IT'S ONLY JANUARY AND CASES CAN TAKE A LONG TIME TO MOVE.

BUT THERE'S BEEN FOUR CASES ALREADY THAT I'M AWARE OF WHERE CASES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL WHERE THEY'VE YET TO BE FILED.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT MATTERS MOST, IS FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION AND VINDICATING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS MATTER OR DOES FRAMING THE NARRATIVE THAT STEPHEN MILLER WANTS PUSHED AROUND THE COUNTRY AND GREGORY BOVINO WANTS PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IS TRUE MATTER MORE THAN THE CONSTITUTION?

I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHICH THE ANSWER IS HERE.

>> RIGHT NOW YOU ARE ALSO SEEING LAWSUITS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THEY'RE CLAIMING AMONG -- SEVERAL THINGS.

THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE 10th AMENDMENT.

WE ARE HAVING TO PUSH ALL OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS TO ALL THESE DIFFERENT EVENTS INSTEAD OF THE JOBS THAT THEY NEED TO DO.

AND THAT THE FEDERAL AGENTS ARE TERRORIZING COMMUNITIES.

NOW, WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD THAT LAWSUITS LIKE THIS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GO FORWARD?

>> YEAH, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH, THESE LAWSUITS ARE SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS ASKING A FEDERAL JUDGE, IN THIS CASE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND STATE OF ILLINOIS ARE ASKING A FEDERAL JUDGE, WE'VE SEEN THESE CASES HA P IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS CATO INSTITUTE JUST FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WITH THE 9th CIRCUIT.

THEY'RE ASKING A FEDERAL JUDGE TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION BARRING THE AGENCIES FROM OPERATING AS THEY ARE, FROM VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION PROLIFICALLY, FROM TERRORIZING CIVILIANS.

AND JUST ALL THEY'RE REALLY ASKING IS FOR THE AGENCIES TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA SIMPLY WANTS I.C.E.

TO CONDUCT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I.C.E.

IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN ANY WAY UNREASONABLE.

NOW, THE QUESTION AS TO HOW SUCCESSFUL THESE LAWSUITS ARE GOING TO BE DEPENDS.

RIGHT?

WE'VE SEEN SOME CASES WHERE THERE'S BEEN SUCCESS IN THE LOWER COURTS.

I THINK EVENTUALLY THE SUPREME COURT'S GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE MERITS OF THESE CASES.

AND YOU KNOW, BY AND LARGE THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

THE QUESTIONS IN SOME OF THEM IS CAN THE GOVERNMENT STOP PEOPLE OR SEIZE PEOPLE ON ACCOUNT OF SOMETHING LIKE ETHNICITY AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE OUTSIDE A HOME DEPOT OR WORKING AT A FARM?

IF YOU OPEN THE CONSTITUTION, THE ANSWER COULDN'T BE CLEARER.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS DEPEND UPON THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN OR WHAT COUNTRY YOU WERE BORN IN.

UNFORTUNATELY, NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT.

AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS LIKE ARE THE COURTS GOING TO BE WILLING TO STOP WHAT'S GOING ON IN MINNESOTA AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN ILLINOIS?

I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

RIGHT?

THE COURTS ARE REALLY OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE HERE.

>> BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS CAN DO TO CONSTRAIN HOW FEDERAL TROOPS ACT ON U.S.

SOIL?

>> YEAH, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL TROOPS AS IN THE MILITARY.

I'M TALKING ABOUT I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL.

>> YEAH, YEAH.

>> SO CONGRESS CONTROLS THE POWER OF THE PURSE, RIGHT?

CONGRESS CAN GIVE I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE MONEY AS THEY LIKE.

OBVIOUSLY IF CONGRESS WERE TO CUT THEIR BUDGET IN HALF THAT WOULD DRAMATICALLY IMPEDE THEIR ABILITY TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY CONGRESS COULD DO IT.

RIGHT?

OTHER THINGS CONGRESS COULD DO IS PASS LAWS THAT HAVE AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, FOR INSTANCE I.C.E.

AND BORDER PATROL AGENTS CANNOT CATEGORICALLY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WEAR A MASK OR BALACLAVA ON THE JOB, THEY MUST HAVE THEIR NAME AND EMPLOYER ON THEM AT ALL TIMES.

BUT THOSE POLICIES ALONE DON'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT JUST IGNORES THEM.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO TIE IT INTO SOMETHING, WELL, IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW IT THEY LOSE X AMOUNT OF FUNDING OR IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW IT ANYTIME THERE'S SOME TYPE OF PROCEEDING THAT GETS BROUGHT IN COURT THERE'S AN INFERENCE AGAINST THE AGENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE COULD DO.

THE OTHER THING, AND I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING CONGRESS CAN DO IS CODIFY, EXPAND BIVENS AND ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

TOGETHER WHAT THAT WOULD SAY IS IF YOUR RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY A FEDERAL AGENT YOU CAN GO INTO FEDERAL COURT, YOU CAN SUE UNDER WHATEVER STATUTE THIS WOULD BE, THAT CONGRESS WOULD CREATE.

AND BY THE WAY, THE AGENTS DO NOT GET QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

SO THEY WILL ACTUALLY -- THAT QUESTION WILL ACTUALLY GO TO A JURY.

AND A JURY IS THE BODY THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THEIR ZBOFT.

SO IN CASES LIKE MS.

GOOD'S, WHAT JURORS WOULD BE ASKED TO DEAL WITH IS SOMETHING LIKE WAS THE FORCE USED BY OFFICER ROSS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

THEY COULD ASK QUESTIONS LIKE IS JUMPING IN FRONT OF OR WALKING IN FRONT OF A MOVING VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING TO THE DANGER AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED?

THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT JURORS ARE SUPPOSED TO GET TO DECIDE.

BUT INSTEAD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO GET THESE CASES TO THEM THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.

>> RIGHT NOW I THINK THE PERCEPTION IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND THE CONTROL OF SEVERAL TROOPS THAT SHOULD BE ALONG THE BORDER TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY.

OBVIOUSLY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT HE'S THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND HE CAN HAVE MILITARY OPERATIONS TAKE PLACE OVERSEAS.

BUT RIGHT NOW IS IT -- I DON'T KNOW.

WHO SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THIS LEVEL OF DEPLOYMENT?

IF YOU HAVE 1,000, 2,000 NEW AGENTS COMING INTO A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY.

>> OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE HOW TO DEPLOY FEDERAL AGENTS AND IN WHAT CAPACITY.

BUT THAT POWER IS NOT UNLIMITED.

IT'S CONSTRAINED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

HE CAN'T JUST DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, UNLEASH AGENTS INTO COMMUNITIES WITH ORDERS TO TERRORIZE PEOPLE AND OPENLY FLOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

SO THAT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE POWER.

AND OF COURSE CONGRESS CONTROLS THE POWER OF THE PURSE.

RIGHT?

IF CONGRESS WANTED TO PUT IN A NO FUNDS MAY BE SPENT TO DEPLOY AGENTS TO CITIES, THEY COULD EASILY DO THAT.

IT'S NOT IN A LACK OF ABILITY.

IT'S A LACK OF DESIRE.

>> LEGAL FELLOW OF THE CATO INSTITUTE PROJECT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE MIKE FOX.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.