Explainer: Can States Prosecute Federal Officials?
As state and local officials increasingly clash with federal officials over immigration enforcement,[1] policing of protests,[2] and much more,[3] they could soon turn to a long-used tactic of state pushback: prosecuting federal agents or officials for violations of state laws.[4]
This practice stretches back to at least the early 1800s, and it comes with a mixed track record. Some state prosecutions of federal actors are relatively non-controversial, like charging postal workers for reckless driving while on the job.[5] Others involve core disputes between states and the federal government, including on desegregation,[6] slavery,[7] and prohibition.[8]
The bottom line is that states are legally permitted to prosecute federal officials for state crimes—within limits. The limits stem from the federal constitutional principle that states should not be able to undermine federal policy via targeted criminal prosecutions, a doctrine known as Supremacy Clause immunity.[9] But this principle only applies when federal officials are reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties.[10] When federal officials act beyond the scope of their duties, violate federal law, or behave in an egregious or unwarranted manner, state prosecutions can move forward. Even where charges are ultimately dismissed, states have occasionally used prosecutions as a form of pushback against controversial federal actions.
https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/2025/explainer-can-states-prosecute-federal-officials/
Violation of constitutional rights is grounds for state prosecution of federal officers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
