Stephen Miller Now Claims ICE Agents Have Immunity With Experts Challenging His Assertion

Summary

Stephen Miller asserted ICE agents have blanket "federal immunity," warning obstruction is a felony amid escalated deportation raids.
Legal experts counter immunity is limited; courts can and do allow prosecutions when agents act beyond reasonable or lawful authority.

In the escalating clash between the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and defiant state leaders, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller dropped a legal thunderbolt this week: ICE agents are shielded by “federal immunity” in their deportation duties, making any interference a felony.

The provocative statement, delivered during a fiery Fox News interview, didn’t just target critics—Miller zeroed in on Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, branding his resistance to federal raids as “seditious conspiracy” and hinting at his potential arrest.

“You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties,” Miller declared in a direct message to ICE agents.

“And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop or obstruct you is committing a felony.”

The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

As the administration ramps up what it calls the “largest mass deportation in United States history,” Miller’s words are more than rhetoric—they’re a gauntlet thrown down to sanctuary cities and progressive prosecutors vowing to hold federal agents accountable.

But is this immunity as ironclad as Miller insists?

Legal scholars are sounding the alarm: Not even close.

The Flashpoint: Raids, Protests, and a Growing Backlash

ICE and Border Patrol agents have become the frontline enforcers of Trump’s hardline agenda, fanning out across urban centers to hit arrest quotas that critics say prioritize volume over due process.

These operations have ignited a firestorm of controversy, from viral videos of rough arrests to fatal encounters that have left communities reeling.

Take Chicago, where Pritzker decried a recent ICE-Border Patrol sweep of an apartment building as a “military-style” raid.

In New York, one ICE officer was briefly sidelined after slamming a woman to the floor inside an immigration courthouse—only to be reinstated days later.

Then there’s the heartbreaking case in Illinois, where an ICE agent fatally shot a Mexican immigrant during a botched arrest.

Protests have erupted nationwide, with clashes outside ICE facilities in Chicago drawing First and Fourth Amendment lawsuits.

A federal judge recently issued a temporary restraining order, barring agencies from using “forceful tactics” against demonstrators and journalists.

These incidents aren’t isolated.

Reports of ICE overreach— including detaining U.S. citizens and deploying excessive force—have multiplied under the Trump playbook, which Miller helped design during his first term.

Now, as local leaders push back, district attorneys in blue strongholds like San Francisco and New York are drawing a line in the sand.

San Francisco DA Brooke Jenkins, for instance, pledged her office would scrutinize any “clear, excessive use of force” by federal agents and pursue charges where evidence warrants.

Debunking the Immunity Myth: What the Law Actually Says

At the heart of Miller’s claim lies the Supremacy Clause, a cornerstone of federal authority enshrined in the Constitution.

It ensures that federal law trumps conflicting state statutes, including in criminal matters.

The doctrine of “Supremacy Clause immunity” shields federal officers from state prosecution when they’re executing “necessary and proper” duties under federal law.

The rationale?

As Georgetown University Law Center professor Stephen Vladeck explains, without it, “states could criminalize the very conduct that federal law enforcement officers engage in and thereby thwart the enforcement of any federal law with which they disagree,” such as anti-discrimination statutes.

But here’s where Miller’s narrative unravels: Immunity isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Vladeck, writing in his Monday newsletter, stresses that “the federal government absolutely retains the ability to prosecute federal law enforcement officers who break the law, even in the course of carrying out their duties.”

Lower court rulings further erode the shield, denying immunity to agents whose actions fall outside “reasonable” bounds or federal authority.

“The federal government absolutely retains the ability to prosecute federal law enforcement officers who break the law, even in the course of carrying out their duties,” Vladeck wrote.

And even at its strongest, he adds, “Supremacy Clause immunity would not preclude a local or state prosecution of ICE officers for all scope-of-employment conduct.”

Appellate lawyer and legal columnist Howard Bashman echoes the skepticism.

“Even as an argument about state criminal prosecutions, that claim is overstated at best,” he posted on his blog, underscoring that Miller’s blanket assurance ignores critical legal nuances.

Georgetown University Law Center Professor Stephen Vladeck.

States Strike Back: From Letters to Courtrooms

The pushback is already materializing.

Last week, New York Rep. Dan Goldman fired off a letter to NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, urging specialized training for officers to “arrest and prosecute federal agents who break state laws.”

Goldman highlighted ICE’s own policies: “ICE’s own policy makes clear agents cannot assert civil immigration enforcement authority over U.S. citizens,” he wrote.

“Yet, under the Trump administration, there have been dozens of credible reports—some recorded on video—showing the agency doing exactly that, with violence and impunity.”

Pritzker’s Illinois isn’t backing down either, with state lawmakers exploring injunctions against federal overreach.

And as Hurricane Melissa’s aftermath strains resources in the Southeast—compounding the chaos of deportation sweeps—public outrage is mounting.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows 58% of Americans oppose the administration’s tactics, up from 52% last month.