Minneapolis Shows the Importance of Lines of Accountability
Which elected official should we blame?
When it comes to governmental actions, accountability matters. In a democracy, the people are entitled to hold their public officials to account. But to do so, they must know who to either blame or credit. Recent legislative actions in New Jersey and the evolving (and increasingly worrying) developments in Minneapolis bring this question to the forefront.
I’ll start in New Jersey. On Monday, January 12, 2026, as it wrapped up its legislative session, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation that, among other things, would codify the law enforcement policy of the Murphy Administration (in place since 2018) limiting the interactions between state and local law enforcement personnel and federal civil immigration enforcement authorities. Other versions of the legislation had languished in the legislature for some time, apparently because of the fear that it would invite a fresh legal challenge by the federal government.
But the mood shifted significantly after the shooting in Minneapolis on Wednesday, January 7, 2026. Widely circulated video showed a federal immigration agent shoot and kill Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, while she was in her vehicle. New Jersey legislators quickly took notice, and by the next day in Trenton, they heard emotional testimony in a committee session from members of the public describing the palpable fear that is pervading throughout the immigrant communities in the state.
The bills passed the committee that day, which set the stage for their ultimate passage in both chambers of the legislature on Monday night, January 12. They now await the signature of Governor Phil Murphy.
Contrary to some, the legislation does not create a “sanctuary” for anyone, let alone for immigrants. If someone commits a crime, the person will be held accountable, regardless of their immigration status. Similarly, if an individual falls out of immigration status, they may be subject to federal enforcement action, and nothing in the legislation would prevent that.
Instead, the legislation delineates lines of accountability and a policy judgment by elected officials on the best use of law enforcement resources. In our system of government, it is widely understood that the states hold the police power; in other words, they have the primary responsibility to maintain public safety and the general welfare of their population. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions happen at the state level. The federal government, on the other hand, can only exercise power as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. And immigration is one of those areas where the federal government, not the states, has nearly exclusive authority to regulate. Congress, in creating our immigration system, decided that much of the violations of federal immigration law are civil, not criminal, in nature.
Thus, for states like New Jersey, policymakers can reasonably decide that in the face of finite resources, states should focus on public safety. By limiting voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration authorities, but allowing for robust cooperation with federal agencies (including the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security) on serious criminal investigations, state and local governments can allocate their limited resources to maintaining public safety and maintain lines of accountability.
When it comes to day-to-day crime, state and local officials will be the ones primarily addressing it. When it comes to immigration, the federal government is responsible.
Which brings us back to the developments and ongoing strife in Minneapolis. After the killing of Ms. Good, the response of Minnesota leaders has been direct, laying blame on the lap of the federal government. The people in Minneapolis and across the country have protested the seemingly overreach of federal enforcement. In turn, the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to partner with its Minnesota counterparts in the shooting investigation. The federal government has surged enforcement personnel to the Minneapolis region, drawing allegations of unprofessional tactics and racial profiling. And now, Minnesota has brought a legal challenge to the deployment of federal agents in the state.
Deescalation is sorely needed.1 So is an independent investigation into the shooting. I tend to agree with my former colleague Elie Honig’s assessment. Considering the public statements to date, the investigation is likely “hopefully compromised” in the eyes of the public.
Whether in Minnesota or New Jersey, the lines of accountability between state officials and the federal government matter. And so does accountability at the ballot box.
The services of the U.S. Community Relations Service, the nation’s peacemaker, would have been critical here had the federal government not dismantled the entire agency.