In recent weeks, public attention has turned again to a familiar but deeply consequential phrase: “federal immunity.” The term has resurfaced after ICE murdered two protestors in Minneapolis followed by Stephen Miller suggesting ICE officers are effectively untouchable by the courts.

For many Americans – particularly those who have experienced or witnessed government abuse – those words confirmed what the legal system has long signaled: accountability often stops where immunity begins.​ But the theoretical debate over immunity, that shields state actors from civil liability even when they break the law, has recently taken a tragic, human form.

Renee Good and Alex Pretti were shot and killed by ICE agents on a snowy street in Minneapolis not far from where George Floyd was murdered. As their families seek answers, they are met with the cold reality of a legal system that shields federal agents from the very laws they are sworn to uphold as long as they claim, “I feared for my safety.”  

In the wake of their deaths, the Trump administration’s claims of “absolute immunity” have made one thing clear: we cannot wait for Washington to fix itself.​ Several Congressional bills ending or cutting back the scope of qualified immunity for law enforcement were introduced in response to George Floyd, but none passed. Following the murder of Renee Good, two Democrats from Massachusetts introduced the Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026, which extends ending immunity for ICE and other federal agents. This was largely symbolic, as it has little chance of passing a Republican-controlled U.S. House and Senate and a signature from Trump.

But in Ohio, many citizens are refusing to accept Washington’s callousness and inaction. The Protecting Ohioans’ Constitutional Rights initiative is not merely a legal reform. It is a call to action aimed squarely at the doctrines that have insulated government actors from consequences for decades – qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.​

How Immunity became a shield​

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s, not by Congress. In theory, it protects government officials from liability unless they violated “clearly established” law. In practice, it has become a near-impenetrable shield.

Courts frequently dismiss civil rights cases before evidence is heard, not because misconduct did not occur, but because no prior case had identical facts.​ We see the profound consequences of this daily in policing, corrections, and immigration enforcement. When Stephen Miller refers to “federal immunity,” he is describing a system where serious rights violations, like the killing of Alex Pretti, may never be evaluated by a jury.​

Why Ohio’s amendment matters​

Our initiative seeks to add Section 23 to Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Its core principle is simple but transformative: any person whose rights are violated by a government actor may seek damages in Ohio courts, and no government actor may rely on immunity defenses.

​While a state constitutional amendment cannot easily strip federal officers of federal immunity, it can restore accountability at the state and local level. ICE operations frequently involve cooperation with state and local officers: traffic stops, jail holds, and task forces. Under current law, those state and local officers often invoke qualified immunity to escape liability, even when their conduct violates basic constitutional principles. Our amendment would close that door.

​Opening the courthouse doors​

One of the most damaging effects of immunity is procedural: cases are dismissed before facts are developed. Evidence is never tested. Witnesses are never heard. Juries are never empaneled.​

Our proposed amendment directly addresses this failure. It does not predetermine outcomes. Instead, it restores a foundational principle: claims of rights violations should be decided on evidence, not blocked by doctrine. It gives state courts a clear mandate to evaluate whether government conduct was lawful or whether it exceeded constitutional limits.​

Critics argue that states cannot meaningfully constrain federal power. That is only partly true. While federal officers may still assert federal defenses, Ohio retains authority over its own officials. This amendment functions as a modern federalism check – ensuring that state power is not used to facilitate constitutional violations without accountability.​

The road here has not been easy. We fought a long legal battle just to reach the people. In Brown v. Yost (2025), the courts finally ruled that the Attorney General could not indefinitely prevent the people of Ohio from exercising their right to propose amendments. Now, as of early 2026, we are officially in the field.

​This amendment does not abolish law enforcement, nor does it invite frivolous lawsuits. It restores balance. It recognizes that government power, without accountability, inevitably erodes constitutional rights.​

At a time when national figures openly discuss immunity as a feature rather than a flaw, and families like Renee Good’s are left grieving without recourse, Ohioans are being asked a fundamental question. Should government actors be beyond the reach of the law, or should constitutional rights have real remedies?​

Taxpayer money to settle police brutality lawsuits filed against law enforcement agencies nationwide has gone past $1 billion over the previous two decades. Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York City have completely banned police officers from using qualified immunity as a defense in state court.

We have until July 1, 2026, to gather the 413,488 signatures necessary to put this on the ballot. The Protecting Ohioans’ Constitutional Rights amendment offers a clear answer to the crisis of accountability.

---------------------

Cynthia Brown is Chair of the Protecting Ohioans’ Constitutional Rights Committee.