# Can Rene Good's Family Sue the Ice Officer Who Shot Her?

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 15 Jan 2026, 41 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/5b5da07b-686e-4811-9357-b3d30181799b/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, discusses whether the family of the woman shot by an ICE officer can sue for damages. Then Jessica Peake, the Director of International and Comparative Law Program at UCLA Law School, discusses President Trump’s rhetoric about acquiring Greenland. And First Amendment attorney Jeff Lewis discusses the FBI searching a reporter’s home. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: The president here is very simple. You have a federal
[0:10] Speaker 2: law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's
[0:14] Speaker 2: a federal issue. That guy's protected by absolute immunity. He
[0:17] Speaker 2: was doing his job.
[0:18] Speaker 3: The rhetoric started on the very day that Renee Good
[0:22] Speaker 3: was shot to death by an ICE officer. Vice President JD.
[0:26] Speaker 3: Vance held a news conference and declared that the ICE
[0:29] Speaker 3: officer couldn't be touched for his actions. That message has
[0:33] Speaker 3: been reinforced by others in the Trump administration. In fact,
[0:38] Speaker 3: on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security posted a clip
[0:42] Speaker 3: of White House Deputy Chief Stephen Miller amplifying that message.
[0:47] Speaker 4: To all ICE officers. You have federal immunity in the
[0:50] Speaker 4: conduct of your duties, and anybody who lays a hand
[0:53] Speaker 4: on you, or tries to stop you, or tries to
[0:55] Speaker 4: obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to
[1:00] Speaker 4: perform your duties, and no one, no city official, no
[1:03] Speaker 4: state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator, or domestic
[1:08] Speaker 4: insurrectionists can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.
[1:13] Speaker 3: So are they right. Will that ICE officer face any
[1:17] Speaker 3: consequences for killing the mother of three? Joining me to
[1:21] Speaker 3: answer that question is Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at
[1:25] Speaker 3: the Institute for Justice. Anya, are these Trump administration officials right?
[1:31] Speaker 3: Do these ICE officers have absolute immunity?
[1:34] Speaker 5: I hate to say that they are right, but unfortunately
[1:40] Speaker 5: they are very close to being right, and there are
[1:45] Speaker 5: exceedingly fewer routes to sue federal officials. It's been happening
[1:49] Speaker 5: for a long time. It's not just a Trump administration invention.
[1:54] Speaker 5: But what they're doing now is really exposing this gap
[1:58] Speaker 5: in accountability between state and local officials, for example, Derek
[2:03] Speaker 5: Chauvin who murdered George Floyd, and federal officials like those
[2:08] Speaker 5: ICE agents who killed Renee Good. So they are very
[2:13] Speaker 5: close to being right. And the reason they're out there
[2:16] Speaker 5: talking about this is because, you know, before the Biden administration,
[2:19] Speaker 5: the first Trump administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration,
[2:23] Speaker 5: they weren't going around and talking about absolute community. The
[2:26] Speaker 5: reason they're talking about it here now is because they
[2:29] Speaker 5: want those ICE agents to go out there and do
[2:33] Speaker 5: their worst and instead of de escalating, instead of trying
[2:36] Speaker 5: to keep the peace. They want them to be out
[2:39] Speaker 5: there marching on the streets and scaring people, and so
[2:42] Speaker 5: they're telling them just so you guys know, there is
[2:46] Speaker 5: nothing that can be done to you. There are, of course,
[2:49] Speaker 5: some routes.
[2:50] Speaker 3: And we should mention that Renee Goods family has already
[2:54] Speaker 3: hired some civil rights lawyers.
[2:56] Speaker 5: So said that he will file under the Federal Third
[2:59] Speaker 5: Claims Act.
[3:00] Speaker 3: Probably okay, Yeah, So first of all, what about a
[3:02] Speaker 3: lawsuit against the federal government, the family filing against ICE
[3:08] Speaker 3: or DHS.
[3:10] Speaker 5: Yes, that is the best route, even though it is
[3:15] Speaker 5: riddled with complexity, as the lawyer who is representing really
[3:18] Speaker 5: a Goods family explained, it is riddled with complexity. It
[3:22] Speaker 5: is not a really full vindication of anyone's rights, but
[3:28] Speaker 5: it is the best route to accountability. The way the
[3:31] Speaker 5: law works now, you file a claim under the Federal
[3:34] Speaker 5: Thought Claims Act, not against the officer who killed you
[3:39] Speaker 5: or who hurt you, but against the United States government
[3:43] Speaker 5: in that officer's stead. The statute originally was really intended
[3:48] Speaker 5: for things like, you know, a USPS driver running over somebody,
[3:54] Speaker 5: like a negligent step of an act, and then somebody
[3:57] Speaker 5: would file a claim with the agency and agency would
[4:00] Speaker 5: compensate for that negligent action. The statute is not a
[4:05] Speaker 5: great fit for constitutional violations like these. And the problem
[4:11] Speaker 5: with the statute too, is that the government invariably invokes
[4:16] Speaker 5: the so called discretionary function immunity. So they basically say
[4:20] Speaker 5: the officer was acting within the scope of his duty
[4:24] Speaker 5: and he was exercising discretion in that he was making
[4:27] Speaker 5: a choice between whether to turn right or left, and
[4:31] Speaker 5: therefore discretion immunity applies, and even the federal government cannot
[4:35] Speaker 5: be held accountable. So those suits are very hard, but
[4:39] Speaker 5: it's still the best option, the FTCA route against the
[4:42] Speaker 5: government itself.
[4:43] Speaker 3: Can you think of a big case recently or you
[4:47] Speaker 3: know the last case where plaintiffs won using that route.
[4:51] Speaker 5: That's a great question. There are no immediate cases that
[4:57] Speaker 5: come to mind. What comes to my mind is actually
[4:59] Speaker 5: the case we argued in front of the Supreme Court
[5:02] Speaker 5: just last year where there was a wrong house raid
[5:06] Speaker 5: on an innocent family's home pre dawn, even though there
[5:11] Speaker 5: was an address on the mailbox right there in front
[5:16] Speaker 5: of the house telling the officers that this was a
[5:19] Speaker 5: wrong house to raid, and so the family sued the
[5:23] Speaker 5: government for this wrong house raid. It was in Atlanta, Georgia,
[5:28] Speaker 5: and the government basically argued, you can't sue us because
[5:32] Speaker 5: the officer exercised judgment and there is supremacy clause immunity
[5:37] Speaker 5: and discretionary function immunity. And the case went all the
[5:41] Speaker 5: way to the Supreme Court, and Justice Gorsuch even said,
[5:44] Speaker 5: you'd think there would be a remedy, wouldn't you for
[5:48] Speaker 5: that kind of a raid, But he said, the answer
[5:50] Speaker 5: is not that simple, and the Supreme Court did not
[5:54] Speaker 5: rule for the family. They remained the case back for reconsideration.
[5:59] Speaker 5: So well, this is pretty much like the most positive
[6:02] Speaker 5: outcome is that we get to reargue this case again
[6:07] Speaker 5: years and years after this actual wrong house raid, and
[6:11] Speaker 5: the family still has seen no justice. The problem then,
[6:16] Speaker 5: is that not too many lawyers even want to argue
[6:18] Speaker 5: these cases because it takes years and years to get anywhere,
[6:22] Speaker 5: as this example demonstrates.
[6:24] Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember that case. So now let's talk about
[6:28] Speaker 3: the route that is difficult, impossible, and that's suing the
[6:32] Speaker 3: individual officers. Suing the ICE agent here, Yes, that.
[6:37] Speaker 5: Is impossible because they are ICE agents, and even in general,
[6:41] Speaker 5: with any federal official, it's extremely difficult. So at the
[6:46] Speaker 5: root of The problem is really congressional admission. After the
[6:51] Speaker 5: Civil War, Congress passed a statue it called Section nineteen
[6:55] Speaker 5: eighty three to allow suits for the violation of the
[6:59] Speaker 5: United States Constitution against state and local officials who we
[7:03] Speaker 5: essentially weren't complying with reconstruction and violating people's constitutional rights.
[7:08] Speaker 5: At the time, you could sue federal government in state courts,
[7:12] Speaker 5: and there was no fear that state courts would be
[7:16] Speaker 5: easy on federal officials. If anything, state courts at the
[7:18] Speaker 5: time were hostile to federal officials. So Congress wasn't worried
[7:22] Speaker 5: about federal officials not getting proper treatment in state courts,
[7:27] Speaker 5: so they didn't include them in this statute. They only
[7:30] Speaker 5: included state and local officials, and that admission is now
[7:35] Speaker 5: used by the Supreme Court as an excuse to deny
[7:40] Speaker 5: any access to courts to plaintiffs whose violations happened to
[7:45] Speaker 5: be conducted by federal officials. They're saying Section nineteen eighty
[7:50] Speaker 5: three does not have federal officials in there. There isn't
[7:54] Speaker 5: an analog like that for federal officials, and they say
[7:58] Speaker 5: Congress should amend that statute include federal officials in there,
[8:03] Speaker 5: and then we will have no problem with people opening
[8:06] Speaker 5: court house doors, but as long as federal officials are
[8:09] Speaker 5: not part of that type of a statute, we're not
[8:12] Speaker 5: going to open the court house doors.
[8:14] Speaker 6: Now. On the other.
[8:15] Speaker 5: Hand, there is a problem that circuit courts are interpreting
[8:21] Speaker 5: another statute that Congress passed as prohibiting suits against federal
[8:27] Speaker 5: officials in state courts too, so that traditional remedy I
[8:31] Speaker 5: told you about is also unavailable. So the way that
[8:35] Speaker 5: the law stands today is that you turn to federal
[8:39] Speaker 5: courts and the Supreme Court is telling you, you, guys,
[8:42] Speaker 5: are not part of Section nineteen eighty three, we can't
[8:44] Speaker 5: do anything about it. And you go to state courts
[8:48] Speaker 5: and they're basically saying, well, circuit courts so far have
[8:52] Speaker 5: said that cases in state courts are unavailable. Though we
[8:57] Speaker 5: do think that by far the best option right now
[9:02] Speaker 5: is actually for states to pass their own statutes like
[9:06] Speaker 5: that section nineteen eighty three that Congress passed back in
[9:09] Speaker 5: the day, and we as public interest lawyers, we have
[9:13] Speaker 5: a really good argument to explain to the Supreme Court
[9:16] Speaker 5: why that kind of route actually should be available.
[9:19] Speaker 6: But this is something that's very new.
[9:21] Speaker 5: We are encouraging states to pass these laws, and we
[9:25] Speaker 5: feel very good about arguing that that's a proper route.
[9:30] Speaker 5: If Congress is not going to do its job and
[9:32] Speaker 5: it's not going to amend Section nineteen eighty three to
[9:34] Speaker 5: include federal officials, then its responsibility of every state to
[9:38] Speaker 5: do so instead.
[9:40] Speaker 3: Now, once since nineteen eighty has the Supreme Court allowed
[9:44] Speaker 3: a bivens action which allows people to sue federal officers
[9:48] Speaker 3: directly to go forward. Do you know why the Court
[9:52] Speaker 3: took that turn.
[9:53] Speaker 5: Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about in terms
[9:56] Speaker 5: of Section nineteen eighty three in excluding federal officials. So
[9:59] Speaker 5: in in the seventies when this case Bevins was decided,
[10:03] Speaker 5: the Court didn't really think that, as statuted by Congress,
[10:08] Speaker 5: authorizing a right to sue was necessary. The Court at
[10:12] Speaker 5: the time thought, you know what, you could just sue
[10:15] Speaker 5: directly under the Constitution, just say my Fourth Amendment rights
[10:19] Speaker 5: were violated, here's my proof, and I demand a day
[10:23] Speaker 5: in court. That was the attitude in the seventies, and
[10:26] Speaker 5: then as we're going into the eighties, the Court, really
[10:31] Speaker 5: led by Justice Scalia, is championing this idea that federal
[10:37] Speaker 5: courts are court of limited jurisdiction, they should be very
[10:40] Speaker 5: humble about the kind of cases that they can hear,
[10:44] Speaker 5: and that without authorization from Congress, they cannot really do anything.
[10:51] Speaker 5: Their hands are tied, right, And that's when they start
[10:54] Speaker 5: pointing to that statute section nineteen eighty three and saying
[10:57] Speaker 5: federal officials are not part of that statute. We can't
[11:00] Speaker 5: just imply an authorization. We must see it in a text,
[11:06] Speaker 5: and we don't see it in the text, so there
[11:09] Speaker 5: is nothing we can do.
[11:10] Speaker 6: That really is.
[11:11] Speaker 5: Starting to take shape in the nineteen eighties. That's why
[11:16] Speaker 5: earlier I said that it's not of Trump's administration's making, right,
[11:20] Speaker 5: that really starts to take shape in the nineteen eighties
[11:23] Speaker 5: and kind of reaches into the two thousands where we're
[11:27] Speaker 5: suing FBI officials for torture. That's when the Court is
[11:31] Speaker 5: really starting to say, you guys, we mean what we say.
[11:34] Speaker 5: We need a statute to authorization. And then it really
[11:37] Speaker 5: culminates in twenty twenty two with the decision Eggbird versus
[11:42] Speaker 5: bull At, where they basically say the door is all
[11:46] Speaker 5: but shut, and frankly, Justice Gorsage and I kind of
[11:49] Speaker 5: sympathize with that. He writes a concurrence, and he says,
[11:52] Speaker 5: we should just overturn Vivens so we don't give any
[11:55] Speaker 5: false hope to anybody. And so everybody understands that you
[11:59] Speaker 5: cannot sue officials in state court for as long as
[12:02] Speaker 5: we have Vivns on the books. Some people are under
[12:05] Speaker 5: the misapprehension that there is any kind of accountability, which
[12:09] Speaker 5: actually there isn't.
[12:10] Speaker 6: That's why the.
[12:11] Speaker 5: Simplest thing to do is to a man section nineteen
[12:14] Speaker 5: eighty three. Then the Supreme Court will say, fine, this
[12:16] Speaker 5: is great. Now you can open the courthouse door. And
[12:19] Speaker 5: short of that, it's states who should take action.
[12:22] Speaker 3: Coming up next, how some states are fighting back. This
[12:26] Speaker 3: is Bloomberg. On the day that thirty seven year old
[12:29] Speaker 3: Renee Good was shot to death by an Ice officer,
[12:33] Speaker 3: Vice President JD. Vance declared with certainty that there would
[12:37] Speaker 3: be no consequences for the officer.
[12:40] Speaker 2: That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing
[12:42] Speaker 2: his job. The idea that Tim Walls and a bunch
[12:45] Speaker 2: of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after and
[12:48] Speaker 2: make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the
[12:51] Speaker 2: job that he was asked to do is preposterous. The
[12:54] Speaker 2: unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official can
[12:58] Speaker 2: actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity. I've never
[13:01] Speaker 2: seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by
[13:04] Speaker 2: a judge.
[13:05] Speaker 3: I've been talking to Anna Bidwell, a senior attorney at
[13:08] Speaker 3: the Institute for Justice. So then Anya, realistically, Vice President JD.
[13:14] Speaker 3: Vance and Trump aid Steven Miller are correct in saying
[13:18] Speaker 3: to the ICE officers, don't worry about what you do.
[13:22] Speaker 3: You're protected exactly.
[13:24] Speaker 5: It pains me to say this, but they are correct.
[13:28] Speaker 5: And again, like I said, previous administrations didn't like to
[13:31] Speaker 5: advertise that right because it's kind of appalling that you
[13:35] Speaker 5: can't see federal officials, so they didn't talk about it.
[13:37] Speaker 5: Then we would go and litigate in court, and they
[13:39] Speaker 5: would make those arguments in court. This administration is happy
[13:43] Speaker 5: to talk about it because they want to encourage ICE
[13:47] Speaker 5: to go out there and do their worst, to not
[13:50] Speaker 5: care about repercussions, to not de escalate, to basically go
[13:54] Speaker 5: out there and break all the constitutional guarantees because fundamentally,
[13:59] Speaker 5: there rea ison't a way to hold too account. Now,
[14:01] Speaker 5: the federal government, if it wanted to, could prosecute those officers,
[14:06] Speaker 5: but does anybody here really believe that the federal government
[14:10] Speaker 5: is actually going to do that. Instead of investigating Jonathan Ross,
[14:14] Speaker 5: they are investigating the wife of Renee Good. Right, So
[14:19] Speaker 5: we are not counting on the federal government to step
[14:21] Speaker 5: in here the one meaningful mechanism, And when it comes
[14:25] Speaker 5: to state prosecutions, there's another complication and another immunity that
[14:31] Speaker 5: comes in. So states generally speaking, cannot prosecute federal officials
[14:36] Speaker 5: when federal officials are exercising their federal duties. So again,
[14:41] Speaker 5: the federal government doesn't even feel compelled to cooperate with
[14:45] Speaker 5: the state government in the situation, doesn't even feel compelled
[14:48] Speaker 5: to share the evidence because they also know that the
[14:51] Speaker 5: state itself is really fundamentally unable to prosecute a federal officer.
[14:56] Speaker 6: So that's where we are right now.
[14:58] Speaker 5: And Jdvans and Steven Miller are very comfortable going out
[15:02] Speaker 5: there and telling Ice, you guys are good. There is
[15:05] Speaker 5: nothing really that plaintiffs can do right now.
[15:08] Speaker 3: So Minnesota, you know they're going to try to do
[15:10] Speaker 3: an investigation, right, I mean, is there a way, even
[15:14] Speaker 3: if it's a loser way, is there a way for
[15:16] Speaker 3: Minnesota to prosecute that Ice officer criminally.
[15:20] Speaker 6: Try I would try.
[15:22] Speaker 5: You know, again, if I'm a state, what I'm going
[15:25] Speaker 5: to try to do at this point is a I'm
[15:28] Speaker 5: going to work to pass a statute to allow suits
[15:31] Speaker 5: for violations of federal Constitution in my courts. And also
[15:35] Speaker 5: I'm going to try to prosecute the officer. Now immediately
[15:40] Speaker 5: there will be a motion to dismiss filed, there will
[15:43] Speaker 5: be arguments against it, but at least you are trying
[15:45] Speaker 5: to get out there and try to do something. I
[15:48] Speaker 5: would also try to just publicly even say here's what
[15:52] Speaker 5: we want to see, right, some of it is public engagement.
[15:55] Speaker 5: When you are a state, if we were to investigate,
[15:58] Speaker 5: this is what we would want to see. These are
[16:00] Speaker 5: the kind of things that would allow us to evaluate
[16:04] Speaker 5: what took place here. Federal government, are you doing this
[16:06] Speaker 5: or are you not doing this? States certainly can't just
[16:09] Speaker 5: sit there and do nothing. But it's an uphill battle
[16:13] Speaker 5: all the way.
[16:14] Speaker 3: What is Illinois doing?
[16:16] Speaker 5: Yes, Illinois is not the only state, but Illinois is
[16:19] Speaker 5: the one that actually passed the law, and so DOJ
[16:23] Speaker 5: is suing it over it right now.
[16:25] Speaker 6: So there are several states.
[16:27] Speaker 5: Illinois is the first one in the line of states
[16:30] Speaker 5: closely behind our California, New York. We also have Colorado, Oregon,
[16:37] Speaker 5: and Maryland who are looking to pass those statutes that
[16:43] Speaker 5: allow people to sue for violations of the Federal Constitution.
[16:47] Speaker 6: In state courts.
[16:48] Speaker 5: So Illinois was the first to get past the finish line.
[16:53] Speaker 5: California just got its bill out of the Judiciary Committee
[16:58] Speaker 5: this Tuesday, and many other states are working on that too,
[17:02] Speaker 5: so they all kind of differ in the approaches that
[17:05] Speaker 5: they're taking. Illinois took a bit more of a targeted
[17:09] Speaker 5: approach with specifically talking about immigration enforcement. States like California
[17:16] Speaker 5: and New York taking a more general approach and talking
[17:19] Speaker 5: about just anybody who violates the United States Constitution should
[17:25] Speaker 5: be held accountable, and that broader approach is actually less
[17:30] Speaker 5: vulnerable to suits by the DOJ. So we are encouraging
[17:34] Speaker 5: states to take that broader approach instead of singling out
[17:36] Speaker 5: a particular agency or a particular conduct.
[17:39] Speaker 6: But we are very.
[17:40] Speaker 5: Encouraged to see that states are starting to do this
[17:43] Speaker 5: at least some states.
[17:44] Speaker 3: And Congress has introduced an act whereas that.
[17:48] Speaker 6: Yes, Yes, Congress.
[17:50] Speaker 5: This is the third time that Representative Hank Johnson introduced
[17:54] Speaker 5: this bill. It's called the Bivens Act, referring back to
[17:59] Speaker 5: that case, trying to codify that right in section nineteen
[18:03] Speaker 5: eighty three instead of just an implied right under the
[18:05] Speaker 5: Fourth Amendment or other constitutional amendments. It's called the Bivens Act.
[18:10] Speaker 5: Your listeners can just google Hank Johnson the Bivens Act
[18:13] Speaker 5: and it will come up, and you'll see how simple
[18:15] Speaker 5: the amendment is. It basically says agents who act under
[18:19] Speaker 5: federal law should also be held accountable just like those
[18:22] Speaker 5: who act under state law.
[18:25] Speaker 6: That's it. It's the simplest amendment.
[18:27] Speaker 5: It would take Congress two minutes to pass it if
[18:30] Speaker 5: they actually had the will to do it.
[18:32] Speaker 6: And again, it's not just ice officers.
[18:35] Speaker 5: Right. I had somebody come to me last year where
[18:38] Speaker 5: a gentleman was killed in an atf raid. They were
[18:42] Speaker 5: executing a warrant because he violated a gun show loophole.
[18:45] Speaker 5: And again, it was a pre dawn raid. The gentleman
[18:48] Speaker 5: didn't know that anybody was coming. He's got a gun
[18:51] Speaker 5: and he thinks somebody is about to come in and
[18:54] Speaker 5: rob him and hurt his wife. So he's there with
[18:57] Speaker 5: the gun and they shoot him and they kill him dead. Right,
[19:00] Speaker 5: And Jim Jordan was outraged by this, and I call
[19:04] Speaker 5: on Jim Jordan to say, let's pass this Bivens Act
[19:08] Speaker 5: so the family who was hurt by the ATF could
[19:11] Speaker 5: also have a day in court like the family here
[19:14] Speaker 5: who was hurt by ice.
[19:16] Speaker 6: So it's not.
[19:17] Speaker 5: A partisan issue, but right now it is being treated
[19:20] Speaker 5: as one, and we don't really see much movement on
[19:24] Speaker 5: the Bivens Act in Congress.
[19:25] Speaker 3: Let's just say you could too a federal officer. I mean,
[19:28] Speaker 3: the federal officer would probably be indemnified right by the government.
[19:32] Speaker 3: I mean they wouldn't have to pay out of their
[19:34] Speaker 3: own pocket anyway.
[19:35] Speaker 5: Yes, that's what invariably happens, and it happens with state
[19:39] Speaker 5: and local officials as well, and they have indemnification provisions
[19:43] Speaker 5: and the governments invariably indemnify them. But at least then
[19:47] Speaker 5: the officer is called out, his actions are analyzed, the
[19:52] Speaker 5: family gets some answers about what happens, because these days
[19:56] Speaker 5: they don't even feel like they need to explain themselves.
[19:59] Speaker 5: And then that officer is unnoticed because he did cost
[20:03] Speaker 5: money to the agency, right, so there is some sort
[20:05] Speaker 5: of accountability going forward too, and the agencies are much
[20:09] Speaker 5: more careful about how they hire because they know that
[20:13] Speaker 5: problematic officers are going to cause them a lot of money.
[20:15] Speaker 5: And in some situations when the violations are outrageous, then
[20:19] Speaker 5: the government basically says, you're on your own.
[20:22] Speaker 6: We're not going to cover it.
[20:24] Speaker 5: It all depends, but fundamentally, the important thing is that
[20:28] Speaker 5: if you allow families to sue, then they don't carry
[20:32] Speaker 5: the burden of the constitutional violation right that they are
[20:35] Speaker 5: actually able to take control of the situation and get
[20:40] Speaker 5: to discovery, figure out what happened, and have the jury
[20:44] Speaker 5: determine what it is that happened and who owns what.
[20:49] Speaker 5: That's a very important thing to have that simply there
[20:53] Speaker 5: isn't anything even close to that right now.
[20:55] Speaker 3: And I want to mention that you've written a legal
[20:57] Speaker 3: insight column for Bloomberg Law entitled Renee Goods family can't
[21:02] Speaker 3: sue under federal law just like in the op ed.
[21:06] Speaker 5: I just can't stop thinking about this, right where what
[21:09] Speaker 5: happened to George Floyd was absolutely horrific and at least
[21:14] Speaker 5: there was some sort of a mechanism right for the
[21:17] Speaker 5: state to look into the actions of the officer and
[21:21] Speaker 5: prosecute him, and for the family to sue the municipality
[21:26] Speaker 5: and say you guys did wrong by us by hiring
[21:30] Speaker 5: this guy and improperly training him. None of those options
[21:34] Speaker 5: are available when it comes to federal officials, and that's
[21:38] Speaker 5: something that really is not right. And you can see
[21:42] Speaker 5: that kind of manifest itself in the way Ice acts.
[21:47] Speaker 5: Right when Jonathan Ross shoots Renee Good and then he
[21:51] Speaker 5: calls her that's the kind of thing that I think
[21:53] Speaker 5: wouldn't happen if he knew that there would.
[21:56] Speaker 6: Be some sort of repercussions to his actions.
[21:59] Speaker 3: It's been great to looking to you. Thanks so much.
[22:01] Speaker 3: That's Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.
[22:06] Speaker 3: President Trump has been insistent that the US needs to
[22:10] Speaker 3: acquire Greenland for national security.
[22:14] Speaker 6: If we don't go in, Russia is going to go in,
[22:16] Speaker 6: and China is going to go in.
[22:18] Speaker 7: And there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it,
[22:21] Speaker 7: but we can do everything about it.
[22:23] Speaker 3: Trump has been ratcheting up the rhetoric, but officials in
[22:26] Speaker 3: Denmark have made it clear that Greenland is not for sale.
[22:30] Speaker 3: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance
[22:34] Speaker 3: met with Danish and Greenland officials at the White House
[22:37] Speaker 3: on Wednesday. Afterwards, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Luga Rasmussen said
[22:43] Speaker 3: their perspectives continue to differ from.
[22:46] Speaker 7: Trump's foss ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of
[22:53] Speaker 7: the Kingdom of Denmark and the riot of such dissemination
[22:57] Speaker 7: of the Greenlandic people, of course totally unacceptable.
[23:02] Speaker 3: Joining me is Jessica Peek. She's the director of the
[23:04] Speaker 3: International and Comparative Law Program at UCLA Law School. Jess So,
[23:10] Speaker 3: after that meeting, it doesn't seem like diplomatic negotiations are
[23:15] Speaker 3: going so well.
[23:17] Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, as you said, the Foreign minister has
[23:20] Speaker 8: said there's a fundamental disagreement and that Trump's threats, repeated
[23:24] Speaker 8: threats to take over Greenland were totally unacceptable. I think
[23:28] Speaker 8: they also said that the conversation was frank but constructive,
[23:31] Speaker 8: and so then the question is what does that actually
[23:33] Speaker 8: practically mean. I know that there has been an agreement
[23:36] Speaker 8: to create a high level working group to discuss the
[23:39] Speaker 8: ways to try and determine a path forward from here,
[23:43] Speaker 8: But at the same time we have President Trump still
[23:46] Speaker 8: maintaining that his intention is to take over Greenland, and
[23:49] Speaker 8: so for as long as he maintains that position. It's
[23:51] Speaker 8: very difficult to see what the path through is because
[23:56] Speaker 8: Denmark very understandably has been, you know, full throated in
[24:01] Speaker 8: their condemnation of Trump's attacks as threats to international law
[24:04] Speaker 8: and the sovereignty of Denmark and the self determination of
[24:07] Speaker 8: the people of Greenland. So those two positions are just
[24:10] Speaker 8: fundamentally opposed to one another.
[24:12] Speaker 3: So just explain the international law here.
[24:16] Speaker 8: Yeah, So any threat or use of force against Greenland
[24:20] Speaker 8: such that we have right now is a violation of
[24:22] Speaker 8: Article two four of the UN Charters. So threats alone
[24:26] Speaker 8: are enough to be a violation there. It's worth noting
[24:29] Speaker 8: that there are a couple of lawful basis for a
[24:32] Speaker 8: use of force, neither of them are present here. One
[24:34] Speaker 8: would be a Security Council resolution authorizing force, and the
[24:38] Speaker 8: second would be a action of self defense in response
[24:41] Speaker 8: to an armed attack under Article fifty one of the
[24:44] Speaker 8: UN Charter, and we don't have either of those here.
[24:46] Speaker 8: So already, even these threats are enough to constitute a
[24:49] Speaker 8: violation of Article two four of the UN Charter. And
[24:53] Speaker 8: even without any direct use of force, the US is
[24:56] Speaker 8: also violating the customary international law prohibition on interval, and
[25:01] Speaker 8: this is a prohibition that prevents states from intervening in
[25:04] Speaker 8: the domain reservey of another state, and so the domain
[25:07] Speaker 8: reserve is areas of state activity that are really the
[25:12] Speaker 8: internal or domestic affairs of a state and therefore within
[25:15] Speaker 8: its domestic jurisdiction. This customary prohibition has been recognized by
[25:19] Speaker 8: the International Court of Justice in numerous occasions, including in
[25:24] Speaker 8: the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua case
[25:28] Speaker 8: in nineteen eighty six that involved the United States, and
[25:31] Speaker 8: also the armed activities on the territory of the Congove
[25:34] Speaker 8: case in two thousand and two. Trump's language around his
[25:37] Speaker 8: threats towards Greenland, things like they can take the easy
[25:40] Speaker 8: way or the hard way, can be interpreted as a
[25:43] Speaker 8: form of coercion and therefore a violation on this prohibition
[25:47] Speaker 8: of intervention.
[25:48] Speaker 3: And if the US military was used, would that be
[25:51] Speaker 3: comparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine.
[25:55] Speaker 8: Yes, it would be a violation of Article two for
[25:58] Speaker 8: the UN Charter and an active aggression similar to what
[26:01] Speaker 8: we just saw a week and a half ago with
[26:03] Speaker 8: the Trump invasion of Venezuela, which was also a violation
[26:06] Speaker 8: of Article two for the UN Charter and an active aggression.
[26:09] Speaker 3: If he strikes in Iran, will that also be a
[26:12] Speaker 3: similar violation?
[26:15] Speaker 8: Yes, you know, the only use of force is permissible
[26:18] Speaker 8: is either in response to an armed attack as an
[26:21] Speaker 8: exercise of Article fifty one of the UN Charter, which
[26:24] Speaker 8: we don't have an armed attack against the United States
[26:27] Speaker 8: from Iran, or under a Security Council authorization, which we
[26:31] Speaker 8: also do not currently have in relation to Iran. So yes,
[26:34] Speaker 8: we would be talking about very similar, potentially very similar
[26:38] Speaker 8: violations of international law.
[26:40] Speaker 3: I mean, the reason that Trump keeps giving for going
[26:44] Speaker 3: into Greenland is that it's needed for the national security
[26:47] Speaker 3: of the United States. But Greenland also has you know,
[26:51] Speaker 3: amazing raw materials, and as far as security, has Greenland
[26:56] Speaker 3: ever refused to allow the US to establish more security
[27:01] Speaker 3: there bases or whatever.
[27:03] Speaker 8: So, you know, experts seem to agree on the strategic
[27:06] Speaker 8: importance of Greenland for the United States national security, but
[27:10] Speaker 8: there's no reason that that requires the United States to
[27:15] Speaker 8: control or own Greenland. And in fact, trying to control
[27:19] Speaker 8: our own Greenland really seems counterproductive to US national security
[27:23] Speaker 8: as it's going to damage this vital relationship between Greenland
[27:26] Speaker 8: and Denmark and other NATO members and the United States.
[27:30] Speaker 8: And you know, as you alluded to, the Greenland and
[27:33] Speaker 8: Denmark have been very cooperative and permissive of the US
[27:38] Speaker 8: maintaining or having access to the territory of Greenland for
[27:42] Speaker 8: national security measures and for military presences. You know, if
[27:47] Speaker 8: we think as far back as nineteen forty, the US
[27:49] Speaker 8: military forces occupied Greenland when Denmark was invaded by Germany,
[27:54] Speaker 8: and vital Air Force installations was stationed there for US
[27:57] Speaker 8: troops to get to Europe. Similarly, that was very strong
[28:00] Speaker 8: cooperation during the Cold War between the US and Denmark
[28:03] Speaker 8: to defend Greenland from threats against the Soviet Union. And
[28:06] Speaker 8: so it's very unclear to me why we're treating this
[28:09] Speaker 8: situation where presumably the national security threat is one coming
[28:13] Speaker 8: from Russia. We have a model of cooperation there that
[28:17] Speaker 8: existed previously, and I don't think Denmark or Greenland have
[28:21] Speaker 8: indicated that they're not willing to maintain that level of cooperation.
[28:26] Speaker 8: But these repeated threats against Greenland by the Trump administration
[28:31] Speaker 8: are undoubtedly going to damage the relationship between these two
[28:36] Speaker 8: countries and Denmark.
[28:38] Speaker 3: The Danish Defense Ministry announced that it's increasing its military
[28:43] Speaker 3: presence in Greenland, along with some NATO allies. France, Germany,
[28:48] Speaker 3: Norway and Sweden announced that they were sending very small
[28:51] Speaker 3: numbers of troops. So this seems to be more symbolic
[28:56] Speaker 3: than anything else.
[28:58] Speaker 8: Yeah, I think at the moment this is just a
[28:59] Speaker 8: show of political support, right, it's NATO allies going to
[29:03] Speaker 8: indicate their support to Denmark in this situation. It also
[29:08] Speaker 8: might be and I have no insider knowledge, but it
[29:10] Speaker 8: might be also to scope out how a ground deployment
[29:13] Speaker 8: could be carried out if one were required. Further down
[29:16] Speaker 8: the line, you know, if Trump actually conducted military force
[29:20] Speaker 8: in Greenland, and this really brings us to you know,
[29:23] Speaker 8: how this might play out with NATO.
[29:26] Speaker 6: Right.
[29:26] Speaker 8: So, NATO is a military and political alliance that was
[29:30] Speaker 8: formed by America and European countries in nineteen forty nine
[29:34] Speaker 8: to provide collective security and to defend its members from threats.
[29:38] Speaker 8: An Article five of the NATO Treaty contains a collective
[29:42] Speaker 8: defense provision, and so that basically states that an attack
[29:46] Speaker 8: on one NATO ally is attack on all NATO allies,
[29:50] Speaker 8: and in response to any attack, each of the NATO allies,
[29:54] Speaker 8: in the exercise of the right to individual or collective
[29:58] Speaker 8: self defense recognized by other Article fifty one of the
[30:01] Speaker 8: UN Charter will assist the party that is attacked. This
[30:04] Speaker 8: is a legal obligation. There are some things to consider
[30:08] Speaker 8: around this right. So one is does Greenland fall under
[30:12] Speaker 8: the auspices of NATO, And undoubtedly it does. Article six
[30:16] Speaker 8: of the NATO Treaty basically provides that an armed attack
[30:20] Speaker 8: must be committed against the territory of any parties in
[30:23] Speaker 8: Europe or North America. Geographically, Greenland is part of North
[30:27] Speaker 8: America as it sits on a North American tectonic plate,
[30:30] Speaker 8: but geopolitically it is tied to Europe and it's a
[30:32] Speaker 8: politically autonomous territory within Denmark. And so it's very clear
[30:37] Speaker 8: under international law that Denmark has sovereignty over Greenland, and
[30:41] Speaker 8: Greenland is part of Denmark. This was confirmed by a
[30:45] Speaker 8: case of the Permanent Court of International Justice back in
[30:48] Speaker 8: nineteen thirty three. Greenland has been incorporated in Denmark through
[30:52] Speaker 8: domestic legislation in the fifties that was recognized by the
[30:56] Speaker 8: UN General Assembly, and really over the past seventy five,
[31:00] Speaker 8: the United States has repeatedly acknowledged that Denmark has sovereignty
[31:04] Speaker 8: over Greenland, and so there's really no question that Greenland
[31:06] Speaker 8: falls within the auspices of the NATO Treaty. So the
[31:09] Speaker 8: question is what happens next. Article five of NATO requires
[31:14] Speaker 8: that there be an attack against a NATO territory, and
[31:18] Speaker 8: we don't have that attack yet. So if an armed
[31:21] Speaker 8: attach were to occur, Article five could be triggered at
[31:24] Speaker 8: the request of Denmark, and if Denmark made that request,
[31:27] Speaker 8: then all of the allies would be obligated under I
[31:31] Speaker 8: legal obligation to respond. They do not need to respond
[31:34] Speaker 8: with a use of force, though, so there are other
[31:36] Speaker 8: things that they could do. So the only other situation
[31:38] Speaker 8: in which Article five has been in voked was after
[31:40] Speaker 8: nine to eleven, and the collective security response is under
[31:44] Speaker 8: Article five. There really range from intelligence sharing to military action,
[31:49] Speaker 8: and so there's a whole host of things that could
[31:52] Speaker 8: happen that would be, you know, not a full military
[31:57] Speaker 8: action within the territory of Greenland. Denmark could also request
[32:02] Speaker 8: assistance from other NATO allies under Article four that would
[32:07] Speaker 8: allow NATO allies to consult where there's been a threat
[32:12] Speaker 8: to the territorial integrity or political independence or security of
[32:15] Speaker 8: any of the states, And that's what we have here.
[32:17] Speaker 8: That would not allow the NATO allies to exercise any
[32:21] Speaker 8: force though, and so I think what we're seeing with
[32:24] Speaker 8: these military troops from NATO allied countries going to Greenland
[32:29] Speaker 8: and from Denmark as well, is really just a show
[32:32] Speaker 8: of political support. At this point, there has not been
[32:36] Speaker 8: any official requests that I'm aware of made by Denmark
[32:39] Speaker 8: under either Article four or Article five. But the NATO
[32:43] Speaker 8: agreement is there and is to be activated for these
[32:46] Speaker 8: very kinds of reasons, right, Like that was the whole
[32:50] Speaker 8: rationale behind the creation of NATO, and so the potential
[32:55] Speaker 8: for it to be activated definitely exists.
[32:57] Speaker 3: So I guess it's just wait and see, right now,
[33:00] Speaker 3: see how serious Trump is about acquiring Greenland.
[33:04] Speaker 8: Yeah, we do have to wait and see. I mean,
[33:05] Speaker 8: I think we're seeing some pretty strong rebukes from Congress
[33:09] Speaker 8: on this, right. So on Monday, there was a bipartisan
[33:14] Speaker 8: bill introduced, the NATO Unity Protection Act, that would prohibit
[33:19] Speaker 8: the use of US Department of Defense or US Department
[33:22] Speaker 8: of State funds to blockade, occupy annex or a certain
[33:26] Speaker 8: control over the sovereign territory of a NATO member state
[33:29] Speaker 8: without that allies consent. So that's potentially something there. I
[33:33] Speaker 8: think overall, the introduction of that bill is very welcome development.
[33:37] Speaker 8: If it receives very robust bipartisan support, it would signal
[33:41] Speaker 8: to our NATO allies that Congress intends for the US
[33:44] Speaker 8: to abide by its commitments under the NATO Treaty. If
[33:46] Speaker 8: such a bill were to pass, it would place restraints
[33:49] Speaker 8: on the president, or it should place restraints on the
[33:51] Speaker 8: President acting unilaterally and continuing to threaten our NATO relationship. However,
[33:56] Speaker 8: we have seen that President Trump has made repeated threats
[33:59] Speaker 8: again NATO in this term and the last, and we've
[34:02] Speaker 8: seen in other instances that the President is willing to
[34:05] Speaker 8: flo out congressional authority when it suits his broader agenda.
[34:09] Speaker 8: I also saw reporting this morning that there is a
[34:11] Speaker 8: bipartisan resolution being introduced today again repudiating President Trump's threats
[34:17] Speaker 8: against Greenland and affirming the US respect for the sovereignty
[34:21] Speaker 8: of Denmark and of Greenland. And it also warns that
[34:24] Speaker 8: any US military action against Danish territory would require Congress's approval.
[34:29] Speaker 8: So again, that should put limits on the ability of
[34:33] Speaker 8: the President to act unilaterally. Whether or not it does,
[34:37] Speaker 8: I think is an open question at the moment.
[34:39] Speaker 3: We'll see if Congress actually moves forward on any of those.
[34:43] Speaker 3: Thanks so much, jess That's Jessica Peak, director of the
[34:47] Speaker 3: International and Comparative Law Program at UCLA Law School. Let's
[34:52] Speaker 3: turn out to the FBI searching the home of a
[34:55] Speaker 3: Washington Post reporter who allegedly obtained and reported on clous
[35:00] Speaker 3: classified information from a Pentagon contractor who's currently in jail.
[35:05] Speaker 3: That's according to Attorney General Pambondy. The Washington Post identified
[35:10] Speaker 3: the reporter as Hannah Nathanson. She was at her home
[35:13] Speaker 3: in Virginia at the time of the search and was
[35:16] Speaker 3: told she was not a target of the probe. Joining
[35:19] Speaker 3: me is First Amendment attorney Jeff Lewis of jeff Lewis Law. Jeff,
[35:23] Speaker 3: how unusual is it to execute a search warrant at
[35:26] Speaker 3: a reporter's home.
[35:28] Speaker 1: It's very unusual. I'm surprised the judge signed off on
[35:31] Speaker 1: such a warrant given the facts of this case. That
[35:34] Speaker 1: apparently the leaker has been detained or arrested already, so
[35:38] Speaker 1: it's not like there's this hot threat, a time sensitive
[35:42] Speaker 1: threat going on that. Rather, they have the leaker, they
[35:45] Speaker 1: know who he is, so I'm surprised.
[35:47] Speaker 3: According to reports, the government said that she was engaged
[35:51] Speaker 3: in a conversation with the leaker involving classified information. Does
[35:56] Speaker 3: that make any difference?
[35:58] Speaker 1: Well, the standards of the court, you is is there
[36:00] Speaker 1: an immediate arm to national security? Is the reporter in
[36:06] Speaker 1: possession of documents that would violate like the Espionage Act?
[36:11] Speaker 1: Those are the kinds of the questions that the court
[36:13] Speaker 1: looks at. Not is a reporter speaking to a confidential source,
[36:17] Speaker 1: but is there immediacy? Is there an immediate threat and
[36:20] Speaker 1: a grave threat to national security?
[36:23] Speaker 3: There is no law that makes it a crime for
[36:26] Speaker 3: a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. But are
[36:31] Speaker 3: there any repercussions from the Assange case?
[36:34] Speaker 1: Well, think that the president was criticized as heavily then
[36:38] Speaker 1: as the president's being criticized now in terms of the
[36:41] Speaker 1: Trump administration in their use of warrants, Because in the
[36:44] Speaker 1: Assage case, there's always this assumption, there's always these norms
[36:48] Speaker 1: that these materials would be safeguarded, that they'd be only
[36:52] Speaker 1: used for purposes of the as prosecution and not used
[36:56] Speaker 1: for political or purposes to deter reporting. In this case
[37:01] Speaker 1: and this day and age, with concerns about the Trump
[37:04] Speaker 1: government's violation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech,
[37:08] Speaker 1: people are concerned about the deterrent effect here and that
[37:12] Speaker 1: this seizure was more than just investigating this leaker, but
[37:16] Speaker 1: instead was meant to send a signal to anyone who's
[37:19] Speaker 1: critical of the Trump administration or communicates with leakers.
[37:24] Speaker 3: Now, the Justice Department has their own regulations about this,
[37:28] Speaker 3: and they've been changed under this ag Pam Bondi, can
[37:33] Speaker 3: you explain what the regulations were before and what they
[37:36] Speaker 3: are now?
[37:38] Speaker 1: Well, yeah, Normally, it's the process, especially when you have
[37:40] Speaker 1: a search warrant as opposed to an exigent search, that
[37:43] Speaker 1: materials sees like this are escrowed, if you will, or bargoed,
[37:47] Speaker 1: and they're placed in a secure setting and they can
[37:51] Speaker 1: only be used. The seized materials can only be accessed
[37:55] Speaker 1: for a very specific purpose related to the criminal proceeding
[37:59] Speaker 1: that the search warrant was in. She did after Bondi
[38:03] Speaker 1: took over, I believe those regulations were relaxed such that
[38:07] Speaker 1: there are fewer safeguards on what that information can be
[38:11] Speaker 1: used for, what the seised devices can be searched for,
[38:14] Speaker 1: and there's no s growing or embargoing of these materials.
[38:18] Speaker 3: What can the reporter do at this point to get
[38:21] Speaker 3: her materials back.
[38:24] Speaker 1: Yeah, after the fact. It's hard because the government could
[38:27] Speaker 1: have made copies of the image devices, right, the phones
[38:31] Speaker 1: and the watch and the laptop. So it's hard for
[38:34] Speaker 1: this reporter to have a remedy. She can certainly get
[38:37] Speaker 1: her gadgets back, but the invasion, the theft of her information.
[38:44] Speaker 1: You'll never ondo that. This underscores the needs for reporters
[38:47] Speaker 1: to use end to end encryption to turn off face
[38:51] Speaker 1: recognition on their phones, to make it as hard as
[38:53] Speaker 1: possible for gadgets to be accessed by the government if
[38:56] Speaker 1: they're physically seized.
[38:58] Speaker 3: This might be about more than just the classified information.
[39:01] Speaker 3: In her reporting, she noted that she had amassed like
[39:06] Speaker 3: more than a thousand sources of federal workers who were
[39:10] Speaker 3: frequently communicating with her, and one wonders if you know
[39:15] Speaker 3: they're looking for more than just classified information related to
[39:20] Speaker 3: this one government.
[39:22] Speaker 1: Worker absolutely both looking for additional leakers within the government
[39:28] Speaker 1: and a deterrent to leakers and a deterrent to reporters
[39:31] Speaker 1: for communicating with leakers. There are bigger implications than just
[39:35] Speaker 1: one government contractor here.
[39:38] Speaker 3: Is there any way to you know, impede the government's
[39:41] Speaker 3: coming after reporters?
[39:43] Speaker 1: Well, Congress could pass further legislation to restrict the power
[39:49] Speaker 1: of judges to issue search warrants. That's one option. Reporters
[39:54] Speaker 1: and newsrooms can protect themselves by having policies regarding security
[39:57] Speaker 1: for their electronic gadgets, using only to end encryption, you know,
[40:03] Speaker 1: software like signal, to communicate with confidential sources and to
[40:07] Speaker 1: only use specific devices when sensitive confidential source information is
[40:12] Speaker 1: gathered by news reporters.
[40:14] Speaker 3: Thanks Jeff. That's first Amendment Attorney Jeff Lewis, and that's
[40:18] Speaker 3: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
[40:21] Speaker 3: you can always get the latest legal news on our
[40:23] Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[40:28] Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,
[40:33] Speaker 3: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[40:36] Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,
[40:40] Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.