Yes, it is entirely possible for a state to charge a federal officer—like an ICE agent—with murder. Contrary to common belief, federal agents do not have "blanket immunity" for crimes committed on the job. However, the process is uniquely difficult because of a constitutional doctrine known as **Supremacy Clause Immunity**.

Here is how a state can navigate this and the "trap doors" that federal agents often use to escape.

### 1. The Legal Path: The "Neagle" Test

For a state (like Minnesota or California) to successfully prosecute an ICE agent for a state crime like murder, the court uses a two-prong test established in the landmark case *In re Neagle* (1890). To be immune from state charges, the agent must prove:

* **Authorization:** Were they performing an act they were authorized to do under federal law?

* **Necessity & Properness:** Were their actions "necessary and proper" to fulfill those duties?

**The Strategy:** A state prosecutor would argue that murdering a civilian (or using excessive force) is **not** "necessary and proper." If the force was unreasonable or violated federal guidelines, the agent loses their immunity and can be tried under state law.

### 2. The "Removal" Tactic

Even if a state brings charges (e.g., a local District Attorney files murder charges), the agent will almost certainly "remove" the case from state court to **federal court**.

* Federal law allows agents to move their trial to a federal judge and jury if they have a "colorable federal defense" (like immunity).

* **Result:** The state still prosecutes the case, but it happens in a federal building with a federal judge presiding. The laws used are still state laws (e.g., Minnesota's murder statutes), but the environment is often more favorable to the agent.

### 3. Historical Precedents

States have successfully pushed these cases before:

* **Ruby Ridge (1990s):** Idaho charged an FBI sniper (*Lon Horiuchi*) with involuntary manslaughter for killing Vicki Weaver. The case went all the way to a federal appeals court, which ruled that the state **could** prosecute because there were questions about whether the shooting was "reasonable." (The charges were eventually dropped by a new prosecutor, but the legal pathway was cleared).

* **Prohibition Era:** During the 1920s, many states charged federal "Prohibition agents" with murder when they shot into cars they suspected were carrying alcohol. In several cases (*e.g., Castle v. Lewis*), courts allowed the state trials to proceed because shooting into a fleeing car was deemed "unreasonable."

---

### Summary Table: State vs. Federal Power

| Stage | What the State can do | The Federal "Counter-Move" |

| --- | --- | --- |

| **Arrest** | Local police can arrest an agent for a crime. | The U.S. Attorney may demand immediate release. |

| **Charging** | The DA can file state murder charges. | Agent files for **Removal** to federal court. |

| **Trial** | State prosecutors argue force was "unreasonable." | Agent claims **Supremacy Clause Immunity**. |

| **Pardon** | Only the Governor can pardon a state crime. | **The President cannot pardon** a state conviction. |

### The "Ultimate" Leverage

The most powerful tool a state has is that **a President cannot pardon a state-level conviction.** If a state successfully convicts an ICE agent of murder under state law, that agent cannot be "bailed out" by a presidential pardon, unlike someone convicted of a federal crime.

**Would you like me to look up specific state laws (like in California or New York) that have been recently updated to make it easier to prosecute federal agents?**

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820290&forum_id=2...id#49578108)