The family of Renee Nicole Good, the Minneapolis woman fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, has retained Romanucci & Blandin, the law firm that previously represented the family of George Floyd in a landmark civil rights case against the City of Minneapolis.
The move signals that the litigation surrounding Good’s death is likely to follow a complex and closely scrutinized legal path involving federal liability, constitutional claims, and potential wrongful death damages.
Potential Causes of Action
Based on publicly available statements from the family’s attorneys, the case is likely to proceed first as a civil rights and wrongful death action, rather than a criminal prosecution. Unlike the Floyd case, which involved local police officers, Good’s shooting implicates a federal law enforcement officer, significantly shaping how the case may be litigated.
The most probable legal avenues include:
- Federal constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging violations of Good’s Fourth Amendment rights through the use of excessive force.
- Wrongful death claims brought under applicable federal and state law frameworks.
- Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims against the United States, alleging negligence or wrongful acts by a federal employee acting within the scope of employment.
Each of these paths carries distinct procedural hurdles and legal standards.
Key Legal Challenges
One of the most significant obstacles the plaintiffs may face is qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless they violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. While qualified immunity does not apply to the federal government itself under the FTCA, it may protect the individual ICE agent unless plaintiffs can show that the use of force was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law.
Additionally, Bivens claims have been narrowed substantially by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, with courts increasingly reluctant to extend constitutional damages remedies to new factual contexts—particularly those involving immigration enforcement or national security. Defense attorneys are likely to argue that this case falls outside the limited scope of prior Bivens precedents.
Disputed Facts and Evidentiary Focus
Central to the case will be the conflicting accounts of the shooting. Federal officials have asserted that Good attempted to weaponize her vehicle, while local officials and the family dispute that version of events. The outcome may hinge on:
- Body-camera or surveillance footage, if available
- Forensic and ballistic evidence
- Eyewitness testimony
- Internal DHS and ICE operational protocols
Romanucci & Blandin’s announcement of a “civil investigation” suggests the firm will seek to shape the public and legal narrative early, as it did in the Floyd case, by releasing findings and applying public pressure alongside courtroom litigation.
Settlement Versus Trial
The Floyd case ultimately resulted in a $27 million settlement, one of the largest civil rights settlements in U.S. history. However, that outcome does not guarantee a similar resolution here.
The federal government historically settles FTCA cases more cautiously, particularly where liability is contested and national law enforcement authority is implicated.
Still, prolonged litigation, adverse factual findings, or damaging disclosures during discovery could incentivize the government to pursue settlement discussions, especially if the court allows claims to survive early dismissal motions.
Broader Legal and Policy Implications
Beyond damages, the case may test the limits of accountability for federal immigration enforcement officers, an area where civil remedies have historically been more constrained than in local policing cases. A ruling allowing the case to proceed could influence future litigation involving ICE operations and use-of-force standards.
If the court dismisses constitutional claims but allows negligence-based FTCA claims to proceed, the case could still result in financial liability without establishing broader constitutional precedent.
Outlook
While the retention of Romanucci & Blandin signals an aggressive and experienced legal strategy, the Good family’s case faces higher legal barriers than state or municipal police cases. Its trajectory will depend heavily on factual evidence, judicial interpretation of qualified immunity and Bivens, and whether courts are willing to scrutinize ICE conduct under existing constitutional frameworks.
Regardless of outcome, the case is poised to become a significant test of civil accountability in federal law enforcement.
