Wire flash
Lawsuits allege ICE agent violated Fourth Amendment in fatal shooting of Minneapolis protester Renée Good
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
Two federal lawsuits filed on October 1, 2026, by the brother and widow of Renée Good allege that ICE agent Jonathan Ross violated the Fourth Amendment and DHS policies when he fatally shot Good on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court for Minnesota, seek damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. According to the complaints, Good was slowly reversing and turning away from Ross when he fired three rounds, striking her in the left temple and left forearm. The plaintiffs claim Ross was never in the path of the vehicle and that any contact with the car resulted from him leaning forward to shoot. This contradicts earlier statements by then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump, who claimed Good attempted to run over officers. The lawsuits name Ross, 10 unnamed colleagues, Noem, and other federal officials as defendants.
Source report
Jonathan Ross, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who fatally shot Minneapolis protester Renée Good on January 7, was not in any danger when he fired three rounds into the Honda Pilot she was driving, according to a pair of federal lawsuits filed Thursday by her brother and widow.
The plaintiffs allege that Ross violated the Fourth Amendment and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies by using deadly force in circumstances that did not justify it. Nor was he responding to a threat that Good posed to anyone else, they say.
Background of the Case
Based on video recorded by witnesses, there was already reason to doubt the assertion that Good "weaponize[d] her vehicle" and "attempted to run a law enforcement officer over," as then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed the day after the shooting. It also appeared clear that Ross and other ICE agents at the scene disregarded widely accepted traffic stop guidelines and flouted DHS use-of-force rules. The lawsuits add new details that, if accurate, further undermine the claim that Ross acted in self-defense.
The Lawsuits
The plaintiffs in both cases are Brent Ganger, Good's brother, and Rebecca Good, her domestic partner.
- First lawsuit: Seeks damages from the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
- Second lawsuit: Relies on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (covering conspiracies to deprive people of equal privileges and immunities) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a 1971 Supreme Court decision recognizing a cause of action for Fourth Amendment violations)
Defendants in the second lawsuit include Ross, 10 unnamed colleagues, Noem, and several other federal officials.
The Incident
The complaints, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, tell the same basic story:
- Renée and Rebecca Good were returning home after dropping Renée's 6-year-old son off at school on a Wednesday morning
- They encountered immigration agents deployed as part of President Donald Trump's deportation campaign
- Renée stopped the car on Portland Avenue and began "honking her horn to alert her neighbors to ICE's presence"
- Rebecca "got out and began to film the agents with her cell phone"
- Although the Honda Pilot was partially blocking Portland Avenue, "numerous vehicles, including the unmarked Chevrolet Tahoe driven by [Ross], drove around their stopped car without incident"
When Ross got out of his SUV, he held his cellphone and recorded the scene as he walked around the car. The video shows Renée Good seated in the driver's seat, smiling and talking calmly through an open window. "That's fine, dude," Good assures Ross. "I'm not mad at you. I'm not mad at any of you." Within two minutes, Good was mortally wounded.
Escalation
When two other ICE agents pulled up on the other side of Good's car, she waved, indicating they should "just go around." Instead, "they got out of their truck, and one of them shouted, 'Out of the car. Get out of the fucking car.'" An ICE agent grabbed the handle of the driver's side door while another agent told Good to drive away.
Good chose to follow the latter instruction. She "began to slowly reverse the vehicle," then "turned the wheels of the vehicle to the right—away from Ross, who was positioned at the front left of the vehicle." She "began to slowly move forward, with the vehicle starting to make a right turn away from the agents."
According to the FTCA complaint, Ross "moved away from the vehicle, his legs and body out of the vehicle's path, while drawing his firearm with his right hand and leaning forward to shoot into the vehicle." As he "leaned forward to shoot, his left hand—still carrying his cell phone—contacted the car near the left headlight, as the car moved past him."
Contradicting Official Accounts
This account suggests any injury Ross suffered was minor and resulted from his decision to shoot Good—a far cry from Trump's description. The day of the shooting, Trump claimed that Good "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer" and that "it is hard to believe he is alive."
Noem claimed Good committed "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to "kill or to cause bodily harm to agents." She asserted that Ross "fired defensive shots" because he was "fearing for his life" and trying to protect "the other officers around him" and "the safety of the public."
According to the lawsuits, none of that was true:
"Ross, leaning forward, with his legs, head, and body out of the path of the vehicle, fired the first shot into the bottom left of Renee's windshield," the FTCA complaint says. "As the car continued its slow right turn away from Ross, he fired two more times into the open driver's side window."
The second round struck Good in the left temple. Another round went through her left forearm. Her SUV careened down the street and crashed into a parked car. "Fucking bitch," Ross remarked.
Legal Analysis
It was already clear that Ross was not in the path of the Honda Pilot when he fired the second and third shots. But according to the lawsuits, that was also true when he fired the first shot.
"At no time was Ross at risk of being run over by the vehicle," the FTCA lawsuit says. "To the extent Ross's arm contacted the vehicle near the time of his first shot, it is because Ross intentionally leaned forward to position himself to shoot Renee."
Supreme Court Precedents
Tennessee v. Garner (1985): The Court held that use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is unconstitutional "unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." The FTCA complaint notes that "deadly force may not be used against a fleeing person who poses no immediate threat."
Graham v. Connor (1989): The Court explained that judges should consider "the totality of the circumstances," including "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
Barnes v. Felix (2025): The Court emphasized that "a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment." This case involved a Texas police officer who endangered himself by jumping onto a moving car and then shot the driver dead. The justices unanimously rejected a test focused solely on "the moment of the threat."
Barnes may be relevant here, since Ross initially positioned himself in front of the Honda Pilot, creating the perceived danger that supposedly justified his lethal response.
Minnesota Law
Minnesota law states that "the intentional taking of the life of another" outside one's home is justified only "when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death." Even if Ross was "fearing for his life," as Noem claimed, that does not necessarily mean his fear was reasonable in the circumstances.
Plaintiffs' Claims
"At no point did Renee pose anything resembling a danger to Ross or to any other person at the scene," the FTCA complaint says. "It was evident that Renee was attempting to slowly drive away, and she had a calm, cordial exchange with Ross in the seconds before he fired. Ross had no reason to believe that he or any other officer was at risk of death or serious bodily injury. No person, including Ross, was in the path of the vehicle at the moment he fired the first shot."
Even if Ross "unreasonably and erroneously believed that he was in danger when he fired," the lawsuit adds, "shooting Renee could not have mitigated any risk to him or to the other agents: firing at a driver in Renee's position only increases the danger to anyone in the vehicle's path, which is why mandatory DHS policy requires agents to consider the implications of an out-of-control conveyance before firing at a driver. Ross fired at Renee with no regard for the safety of anyone present at the scene."
Source
Reason MagazineWestern
Part of this Story
Family of Renée Good sues U.S. government and Trump officials over ICE killing in Minneapolis