In early 2026, incidents in Minneapolis involving the shooting of two U.S. citizens by federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents have raised profound legal and constitutional questions. The conduct of these agents—documented in numerous videos and pictures—is emblematic of broader concerns about governmental lawlessness and the limitations of legal recourse. This situation has sparked public inquiries into its legality and the courts’ role in addressing such conduct, as discussed in a recent analysis by legal scholar Carolyn Shapiro.
The U.S. Supreme Court has often constrained attempts to challenge unconstitutional actions by federal officials, primarily by narrowing the availability of redress through litigation. Two primary avenues through which courts can theoretically address constitutional violations are lawsuits for monetary damages and suits for injunctive relief. Both paths face significant obstacles.
For lawsuits seeking monetary damages, limitations are highlighted by key court decisions. The principle cast in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents allowed plaintiffs to sue for constitutional violations by federal officers. However, subsequent rulings have restricted its applicability, particularly in contexts involving new categories of defendants or different circumstances. An example is the decision in Egbert v. Boule, where the judiciary deferred to Congress regarding remedies against Border Patrol agents.
In addition, the doctrine of qualified immunity poses a substantial barrier, protecting officials from liability unless they violate “clearly established law.” This requirement has been scrutinized, as it necessitates near-identical precedent to overcome qualified immunity, effectively shielding many officials from accountability.
When it comes to injunctive relief aimed at halting unconstitutional practices, standing emerges as a critical hindrance. A landmark ruling in Lyons v. City of Los Angeles concluded that despite a plaintiff’s past injury, prospective injury had to be likely to afford standing for an injunction. This reasoning complicates efforts to enjoin ongoing law enforcement misconduct without more immediate personal risk.
The Supreme Court’s approach to nationwide or universal injunctions further constrains judicial intervention. A 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA sharply limited such injunctions, although mechanisms like class actions were noted as alternatives.
Despite these federal barriers, state actions offer potential redress. State officials are increasingly asserting their power to investigate and prosecute federal agents under state law. Furthermore, some states have enacted statutes allowing for damages against officials violating constitutional rights, presenting an alternative path to accountability.
These legal strategies align with federalism principles, emphasizing state sovereignty and local accountability, possibly providing a more effective response to the question of “can they really do that?” than what federal courts have permitted.