There were many things that were horrible about J.D. Vance’s little foray into the White House Press Room today, but one point is sliding by some of the coverage without comment. However, this murder seems to have woken up some of our media to their jobs. And the thing they’ve noticed from Vance’s angry lie-fest to White House reporters is a claim he made to try and defend Jonathan Ross from any possibility that he could face state charges: that he is covered by “absolute immunity”.
Here’s the relevant video:
Vance: That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job. The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals are going to go after him and make his life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous.
What Vance has tried to pass off as a normal and legal doctrine is, in fact, a radical reinterpretation of immunity doctrine as it has been know under American law and precedent. Basically, he is claiming that this ICE officer has the sort of immunity that is usually reserved for a limited number of offices and to particular circumstances. It also applies to civil immunity, not to immunity from prosecution for committing felonies. The list of people and circumstance is really pretty short:
- lawmakers engaged in the legislative process
- judges acting in their judicial capacity
- government prosecutors while acting in their prosecutorial capacity
- executive officers while performing adjudicative functions
- the President of the United States
- Presidential aides who first show that the functions of their office are so sensitive as to require absolute immunity, and who then show that they were performing those functions when performing the act at issue
- witnesses while testifying in court (but not for perjury)
- lawyers in certain circumstances related to fraud
That’s it. You’ll notice that nowhere on that list is an actual law enforcement officer. That’s because they only have qualified immunity, which not only does not always shield them from civil action (though it probably does that too often) but also is no protection from criminal prosecution if they break the law.
So why is this important? Because not only is Vance claiming that an ICE officer who under no circumstances should qualify for it is covered by absolute immunity, but he’s also using that as a means to say that the agent cannot be prosecuted by the state of Minnesota, no matter what he did or did not do. That is the essence of this claim of absolute immunity. It is also almost certainly the trial balloon the Trump administration is sending up (via Vance) to see if they can get away with this claim when it becomes apparent that the FBI and DOJ will do nothing and Minnesota goes ahead and charges him with murder.
This isn’t just a defense of one ICE agent, though, it’s the way they want to be able to conduct operations from now on. With the expanded version of absolute immunity that Vance is floating in his statement, ICE officers could engage in almost any conduct while performing their “official duties” and not be liable to prosecution. This is the play they’re cooking up to make ICE the unaccountable secret police force that they so dearly want.
