A Wave of State Lawsuits Targets Federal Immigration Officers, Challenging Trump’s “Absolute Immunity” Claim

Democrat-led states are increasingly implementing new legal mechanisms that empower residents to sue federal immigration officers and restrict how agents operate in venues such as courthouses. This development is escalating a high-stakes legal conflict with the administration of President Donald Trump over accountability and the boundaries of state authority.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed legislation in December that supporters describe as the state’s version of what is known as a Bivens action. This law permits lawsuits against federal immigration agents for specific constitutional violations during civil enforcement activities while preserving qualified immunity protections.

The Department of Justice has sued Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, arguing that the legislation constitutes an unconstitutional attempt to regulate federal officers and threatens the safety of federal personnel.

The Trump administration maintains that federal agents possess “absolute immunity” from state-led prosecutions.

California’s state Senate recently approved Senate Bill 747, known as the No Kings Act. Supporters claim this bill would enable individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional violations in California courts—a framework they argue could be replicated elsewhere.

Similar legislative initiatives are emerging in Colorado, Maryland, and Rhode Island, reflecting a broader effort among Democratic-led states to address gaps where federal law has narrowed accountability mechanisms.

In Minnesota, Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers are drafting legislation that would allow residents to seek “civil and monetary damages” for unconstitutional acts. The proposal states: “The proposal is simple: Minnesotans injured by unconstitutional acts should be able to seek a remedy from an independent and impartial court.”

This movement stems from a longstanding gap in U.S. law: While individuals can sue state and local officials for constitutional violations under federal civil rights statutes, similar claims against federal officers have been significantly restricted by the Supreme Court over recent decades.

States are now exploring whether they can bridge this accountability gap through state-law claims that mirror civil rights lawsuits typically brought against state officials.

Harrison Stark, a researcher with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, stated: “Congress has never created an analogous version for federal agents, largely because it sort of didn’t have to. The result is that you have federal agents who are behaving as if they know it is extremely unlikely that they will face any penalty for violating constitutional rights.”

A coalition of prosecutors known as Fight Against Federal Overreach is also supporting the initiative, vowing to monitor federal conduct and coordinate accountability efforts across jurisdictions.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner emphasized: “No agency and no officer is above the law.”

A Department of Justice spokesperson criticized governors pursuing such measures, stating: “Instead of vilifying federal law enforcement when attacks on ICE have surged 1,300%, these radical governors should reverse their state’s sanctuary policies and protect their constituents from being brazenly raped, murdered, or set on fire by violent criminals in our country illegally.” The spokesperson added, “This Department of Justice is focused on law and order and public safety, and Americans deserve leadership focused on supporting them, not spewing divisive rhetoric that undermines those sworn to keep them safe.”