On January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti—a 37-year-old ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital—was fatally shot by U.S. Border Patrol agents during an immigration enforcement operation. His death has ignited a constitutional confrontation between state and federal authorities, raised fundamental questions about the limits of federal officer immunity, and exposed critical gaps in accountability for federal law enforcement.
While legal analysis is essential, so is acknowledging the human cost: Pretti was a respected nurse, a lawful gun owner, and a member of his community. His sudden death has left loved ones grieving and searching for answers.
What the Video Evidence Shows?
Multiple videos verified by Reuters, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and ABC News have captured the incident from several angles. The footage shows Pretti filming federal agents with his phone and directing traffic around the enforcement operation. When an agent pushed a woman to the ground, Pretti moved to shield her, placing his arm around her.
Agents then pepper-sprayed Pretti and wrestled him to the ground. According to forensic analysis by ABC News, approximately six agents surrounded him. Video reviewed by The Wall Street Journal shows an agent in a gray jacket reaching into the scuffle, removing a handgun from Pretti’s waistband, and stepping away. Less than a second later, another agent opened fire. A forensic audio analysis determined that ten shots were fired in under five seconds.
Key facts established by multiple sources:
- Pretti was a lawful firearm owner with a valid Minnesota permit to carry.
- Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed Pretti “did not violate” state gun laws.
- No video evidence shows Pretti brandishing or reaching for his weapon.
- He had no criminal record.
The Federal Government’s Claims vs. the Evidence
The Department of Homeland Security claims Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “attacked” officers. Secretary Kristi Noem accused Pretti of being a “domestic terrorist” who intended to “massacre” officers. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino stated that federal agents are “the victims” and that Pretti “perpetrated violence.”
These characterizations are not supported by the available evidence. The Minnesota Star Tribune assessed that the administration’s claims are “uncorroborated and contradicted by witnesses and video evidence.”
Former acting DHS Undersecretary for Intelligence John Cohen, now an ABC News contributor, stated that the videos show Pretti “did not walk up to anybody from CBP in a threatening manner” and that nothing in the footage supports the claim he arrived intending to shoot officers.
Minnesota’s Deadly Force Statute: Was the Shooting Legally Justified?
Under Minnesota Statute 609.066, the use of deadly force by a peace officer is justified only when “an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm.”
The statute sets out specific requirements. The threat must: (1) be articulable with specificity; (2) be reasonably likely to occur absent action by the officer; and (3) require deadly force to address without unreasonable delay.
This is the central legal question: Did an objectively reasonable officer, seeing a colleague remove a firearm from Pretti’s waistband while Pretti was pinned to the ground by multiple agents, have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm?
The video evidence—showing the weapon removed before shots were fired, while Pretti was already restrained by multiple officers—raises serious questions about whether this standard was met. As University of St. Thomas law professor Rachel Moran explained: “Minnesota has a statute specifically about when police officers can use force, and it says essentially that an officer can be justified in using deadly force if a reasonable officer in that situation would have believed the deadly force was necessary to prevent death or imminent serious bodily harm. The concern I have here is, was this actually one of those cases?”
Does Lawfully Carrying a Gun Justify Being Shot?
In Minnesota, citizens with a firearms permit are legally entitled to openly carry a handgun in public—including at protests. This creates a significant legal tension with statements from federal officials.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!” FBI Director Kash Patel stated: “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.”
These statements prompted sharp criticism from Second Amendment advocates across the political spectrum. The National Rifle Association called Essayli’s comments “dangerous and wrong” and called for a full investigation. Gun Owners of America condemned the “untoward comments.” Republican Representative Thomas Massie stated: “Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement.”
The legal question is clear: Under both Minnesota law and established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, lawful concealed carry—without evidence of brandishing or threatening behavior—cannot by itself justify the use of deadly force.
Pretti did not reach for or threaten anyone with his firearm. He was exercising both his First Amendment right to observe law enforcement and his Second Amendment right to carry a lawfully owned weapon.
Can Minnesota Prosecute Federal Agents? Understanding Supremacy Clause Immunity
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has asserted that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause “precludes a federal officer from being held on a state criminal charge where the alleged crime arose during the performance of his federal duties.” Stephen Miller told ICE officers they have “federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”
This is not an accurate statement of the law.
As Professor Moran explains: “The fact that it’s a federal agent doesn’t mean the state can’t investigate or that the state can’t possibly prosecute if there’s a reason to call this a crime. What we’re seeing from the federal government is they’re trying to claim ‘they’re federal agents, they’re immune,’ and that’s just incorrect.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in In re Neagle (1890) established that federal officers can claim Supremacy Clause immunity when prosecuted by states. But this immunity has never been absolute. The test, as developed by lower courts, asks whether the officer “had an objectively reasonable and well-founded basis to believe that his actions were necessary to fulfill his duties.” The key phrase is “necessary”—immunity does not extend to conduct that exceeds the bounds of federal authority or that violates clearly established constitutional rights.
States have successfully prosecuted federal officers throughout American history. If Minnesota were to bring charges, the federal officer would almost certainly seek to remove the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. A federal judge would then determine whether Supremacy Clause immunity applies.
One crucial point: Even if the case proceeds in federal court, it would remain a state prosecution for a state crime. This matters because the President’s pardon power extends only to federal offenses—not state crimes. A conviction for violating Minnesota law would not be subject to presidential pardon.
Troubling Signs in the Investigation
Minnesota’s ability to investigate has been actively obstructed. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension obtained a search warrant for the scene but was blocked by federal officials from accessing it. State investigators reported it was “unclear how carefully federal personnel processed the scene—if at all.” Hours after the shooting, federal officials left, “allowing the perimeter to collapse and potentially spoiling evidence.”
U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud granted a temporary restraining order barring DHS from “destroying or altering evidence related to the fatal shooting.” Senator Tina Smith accused the administration of a “cover up” for ignoring this court order. Minneapolis Police Chief O’Hara told CBS News that his department “hasn’t received any cooperation or information from the federal government.”
The federal investigation is being led by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) branch—an unusual choice that has raised concerns among current and former federal law enforcement officials. HSI is not typically tasked with investigating officer-involved shootings and lacks the typical structure for ballistics analysis, forensic processing, firearm examinations, video review, and large-scale witness canvassing.
There is also reason to question the credibility of officials defending the shooting. Commander Bovino—the primary spokesman characterizing the shooting as justified—was reprimanded by a federal judge in late 2025 for lying about his justification for throwing a gas canister without warning at protesters in Chicago.
Professor Moran noted: “A federal court judge has specifically found that Greg Bovino himself has lied about previous allegations of assaults against his agency and against his officers. So I am concerned when he’s the spokesperson saying, ‘this is a justified shooting, our officers were afraid.'”
Civil Lawsuit Possibilities: Fourth Amendment Claims
Beyond criminal prosecution, Pretti’s family could bring a civil rights lawsuit alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court evaluates deadly force under what is known as the “objective reasonableness” test: whether a reasonable officer, facing the same circumstances at the same moment, would have believed deadly force was necessary.
Such a suit would face the hurdle of qualified immunity, which shields officers unless their conduct violated “clearly established” constitutional standards. However, courts have found that shooting an individual who has been disarmed and restrained can overcome this defense. The question would be whether the officers’ conduct was so unreasonable that constitutional protections do not apply.
Broader Questions About Power and Accountability
This case raises questions that extend far beyond Minneapolis. What happens when the federal government investigates itself? What checks exist when states are blocked from investigating officer-involved deaths on their own soil?
If federal agents can use deadly force against a lawful gun owner who is being restrained, then claim blanket immunity from state prosecution, what recourse exists for citizens?
As Professor Moran warned: “These types of shootings could happen anywhere. They have happened elsewhere—Border Patrol shot a woman in Chicago. Fortunately she lived, but they claimed they did it because she was assaulting them, and it turns out that that was untrue. It’s about giving up complete control to the federal government and armed federal agents.”
Multiple legal proceedings are now underway. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is arguing for a temporary restraining order to pause Operation Metro Surge. The state has sued DHS Secretary Noem and other federal officials.
Congressional leaders from both parties—including Republican Senators Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, Pete Ricketts, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins—have called for comprehensive and transparent investigations.
The coming weeks will determine whether the legal system can provide accountability—or whether federal agents operate with effective impunity when conducting immigration enforcement operations.
About MW Law LLC
MW Law LLC is a boutique immigration law firm based in Chicago that represents clients across the United States in employment-based immigration matters, including H-1B visas, O-1 visas, L-1 transfers, PERM labor certification, and green card sponsorship.
While our primary focus is on business immigration, we believe that cases like the killing of Alex Pretti highlight urgent questions about civil rights, government accountability, and community safety. We mourn this tragedy and support efforts to pursue truth and accountability.
If you have questions about employment-based immigration or federal enforcement trends, contact MW Law LLC for a confidential consultation.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. The facts of this case are still developing and may change as more information becomes available.