Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
he's a coward. "oh but they've likely threatened his life and his familiy" ok then immediately step down and have someone else jump in that is willing to take the bullet for the people.
Someone, anyone, at this point needs to step up and NOT be afraid to do whatever it takes to defend and protect US citizens from nazis.
Maybe if he says it enough times they’ll leave. Or maybe he should enforce the law in his state.
he knows trump wants to declare martial law. and he knows trump could have him and his entire family murdered with one phone call. everyone's waiting for someone to step up and show some leadership against fascism, and if it ever happens, it's definitely not going to be someone in public office
These people literally ran for office specifically to represent the people. They shouldn't be shy about putting things on the line
Then what the fuck is this guy even for?
We're kinda at the do nothing and be murdered or do something and then maybe get killed for it stage.
Starting to seem like trying is the better option
Sometimes it's better to die on your feet rather than your knees.
and he knows trump could have him and his entire family murdered with one phone call.
Yes, [REDACTED] brought up the Hortman assassination a propos of nothing on social media, and within 12 hours, Walz dropped out of the governor's race quite unexpectedly. That was my first thought, that the regime has made its threat clear to him.
We have a federal government that is using mob/cartel tactics to terrorize people into submission.
This is not okay.
I think he should never have run. It would have been an unprecedented 3rd term.
He needs to click his heels three times first. That’s why it’s not working.
Got downvoted for claiming all he and other democrats were going to do was angrily Tweet.
They angrily Tweeted and made phone calls.
How surprising.
Walz said he spoke with President Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, twice this morning.
Chickenshit coward can’t even talk on the phone with Walz. What a traitorous cunt.
“First request was to get her people out of there, to get these federal agents out of there,” Walz said. “They were going to cause more chaos. And second call is, with no uncertain terms, that we will investigate this. We will not be stonewalled.”
The governor said he believes federal agencies “cannot be trusted to lead this investigation.”
“The state will handle it, period,” he said.
Another toothless message. What a joke. Trump is going to invoke the Insurrection Act regardless of what you do. At least protect your damn citizens from cold-blooded federal jackboots!
Using the cold-blooded state jackboots? Where's the force that would side with protestors strongly enough to go up against ICE?
If they push hard enough the citizens of MN will engage in asymmetric warfare like every other occupied group. The IRA, Palestinians, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc. It's the ultimate way to deal with militarily superior occupying forces. I can see IEDs blowing these federal thugs to the moon.
Walz could call the national guard to protect the protesters
He called them to help the police. "With what?" is the obvious question.
Stop groveling and force them out you fucking tool. Even if you don't have the official power to do it people will back you if you make a stand.
If he had balls he'd arrest them
It sounds like the federal government can move cases involving federal law enforcement agents performing their duties to federal court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442
28 U.S. Code § 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
I think
and I may be wrong
that in a case in federal court, it'd be up to federal prosecutors to prosecute. I don't know if the Trump administration actually has to prosecute them in that scenario.
Not something that I've read up on before, though. I imagine that there are probably articles out there with various lawyers chiming in.
searches more
https://poracldf.org/blog/supremacy-clause-immunity-for-federal-officers/
In short, subjecting federal officers to state criminal sanctions for carrying out their federally appointed duties could make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to function. Even the most dedicated federal servant would be reluctant to do his job conscientiously if he knew it could mean prison time in the state penitentiary. Seth P. Waxman, What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause, 112 Yale L.J. 2195, 2230-31 (2003).4
In carving out the contours to the federal immunity defense, the courts have established a two-part requirement, adopting in part the Neagle language: “a state court has no jurisdiction if (1) the federal agent was performing an act which he was authorized to do by the laws of the United States and in (2) performing that authorized act, the federal agency did no more than was necessary and proper for him to do.” Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Long, 837 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1988).
Significantly, in analyzing the second “necessary and proper” factor, particularly in the context of an agent acting under exigencies, the courts have applied a broad view of the reasonableness of the conduct, focusing “on the intent of the officer and not the actual legality of his action.” Colorado v. Nord, 377 F. Supp. 2d 945, 951 (D. Col. 2005) (emphasizing “a federal officer is still entitled to immunity when he acts in good faith within the general scope of his duties as he understands them;” id. at 950); Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1977) (federal officer seeking immunity need not show that his action “was, in fact, necessary or in retrospect justifiable, only that he reasonably thought it to be”). Just as Neagle involved a murder prosecution, the nature of the state prosecution is not the controlling factor; rather, the only consideration is the intent of the officer in enforcing his federal responsibilities. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes emphasized, “even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States.” Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51, 56-57 (1920).
As five Ninth Circuit judges agree, not only is the federal immunity provision construed broadly but great leeway is given to a federal agent, so long as the agent is not acting with an evil intent: “when the federal agent is acting reasonably within the broad contours of official duty, and without malice, the courts have employed the Supremacy Clause to protect the agent from prosecution.” Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359 (9th Cir.) (en banc), vacated as moot, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (Hawkins, dissenting).
looks further
Okay, it sounds
and this is just from the phrasing in an article that's arguing in favor of state charges for one of the ICE situations
like state prosecutors can prosecute even in the case that the prosecution is moved to federal court:
https://prospect.org/2026/01/07/ice-agents-can-be-charged-with-murder/
The history of state prosecutions of federal officials goes back to the War of 1812, when some New England states used state statutes to prosecute federal customs officers who seized goods that were under a trade embargo. Often, they are used to resist a federal law that states don’t like, such as the Fugitive Slave Act.
But numerous states have indicted, charged, and arrested federal law enforcement officers for conduct that exceeded their official duties. In 1898, Virginia charged a federal tax collector posse with shooting and killing horses and cattle during a shootout. The federal posse claimed they were ambushed while attempting to collect taxes.
More to the point, in Findley v. Satterfield (1877), Castle v. Lewis (1918), Oregon v. Wood (1920), Smith v. Gilliam (1922), Maryland v. Soper (1926), and many more, states alleged that federal officers committed murder or attempted murder while engaged in law enforcement activity. Almost always, the federal response was that they were performing federal duties, that they acted in self-defense, or both. Often, these cases were removed to federal court, but the state prosecutors maintained the case. (Federal officers have the right to move cases to federal court, but not the unlimited right; they have to assert some plausible federal defense to the charges.)
EDIT: Well, or what they're actually saying is that they're trying to continue the case in state court. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to dig into this really deeply, because I suspect that there are going to be various legal commentators with a lot more expertise than me talking about this in short order if there are charges filed. But at least I wanted to highlight one issue likely to come up if there are attempts to prosecute in state court.
EDIT2: Yes, state prosecutors do retain control of the prosecution if the case is moved to a federal court. Here's a better source (talking about the Good shooting, but same issue):
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/minnesota-can-prosecute-jonathan-ross-but-it-may-not-be-easy
Finally, whether Supremacy Clause immunity applies will almost certainly be decided by a federal court, even though any criminal charges would first be filed in Minnesota state court. That is because federal officials are able to remove both criminal and civil cases from state court to federal court if those cases involve actions taken “under color of” their federal office. If charged, Ross would almost certainly choose to remove the case. Even in federal court, however, state criminal prosecutors would remain in charge of the prosecution, and any conviction would be a conviction under state law. And the president cannot pardon a state law crime.
Citizens are also constitutionally entitled to refuse entry to government agents who don't have a warrant signed by a judge. ICE is blatantly ignoring that fact with the full blessing of the federal government. Laws are not being followed. Making a legal argument in the face of that kind of situation is pointless. You do what is in your power to do and let history judge the result. Call in the guard and force them to spring the "trap" we all know is coming. At least then it will be absolutely clear to everyone what is happening.
He can't arrest them anymore than you can.
Laws and rules don't matter any more
He can arrest them, and have them indicted. The feds would take the case and the DOJ would defend. They would ultimately have to prove they were performing their duties to a federal judge.
Oh what relief! That will get them out!
What do you expect him to do, walk down there and physically push all of the multiple thousands of them out by himself?
Talk is cheap, let's see some ACTION
Use the national guard. If that isn't an option call for volunteers to get them out. People are chomping at the bit to deal with these motherfuckers.
He is the chief executive of an entire state with 50,000 employees across 100 state agencies, including police and national guard units. His FUCKING JOB is to protect the people of his state,
It's becoming increasingly clear why Harris chose him.
so he could stay in minnesota as governor?
Have the day you voted for 💋
No one is coming to save us
Walz can fuck off if he's not going to do anything. Fucking enabler.
Pwitty pwease Mr. Dictator!