First Amendment groups are concerned that the federal government's investigation into the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis will have negative implications for free speech.
The concern followsNew York Times reportingthat the Department of Justice and FBI are looking into Good's potential connections to activist groups as part of the federal investigation into the Jan. 7 shooting in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement OfficerJonathan Ross killed Good.
The administration is investigating her possible ties to groups that have protestedPresident Donald Trump's approach to immigration enforcement, the news organization reported, citing people familiar with the inquiry.
Several First Amendment experts questioned the relevance of that potential background in interviews with USA TODAY. They reiterated that the Good investigation is in its early days and that more facts would be revealed as it continues.
The Department of Justice referred USA TODAY to Attorney GeneralPam Bondiand Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's X posts addressing the fallout over Good's killing.
Bondi saidin a Jan. 8 postthat peaceful protest is a "sacred American right protected by the First Amendment" but that it is a federal crime to impede or attack federal law enforcement or damage federal property.
A federal agent shot a person in the leg in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 14 after being assaulted during an arrest, the Department of Homeland Security said, sparking further protests in a city on edge after the deadly shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent earlier this month. " style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 
Second shooting incident in Minneapolis amid ICE protests. See the scene
A federal agentshot a person in the leg in Minneapolison Wednesday, Jan. 14 after being assaulted during an arrest, the Department of Homeland Security said, sparking further protests in a city on edge after the deadly shooting ofRenee Nicole Goodby an ICE agent earlier this month.
"If you cross that red line, you will be arrested and prosecuted," she wrote. "Do not test our resolve."
Blanchewrote in partthat law enforcement officials are not required to "gamble with their lives in the face of a serious threat of harm."
USA TODAY reached out to the FBI for comment.
Experts question relevance of potential activism
Teresa Nelson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Minnesota, said she saw "a lot of throughlines" between the reported investigation into Good's possible activist ties and how officials have responded to other police custody deaths in the state.
She described a trend of officials seeking to downplay law enforcement's roles in such deaths, specifically referring tothe cases of George Floyd, murdered by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020; and David Croud, whodied under Duluth Police Departmentcustody in 2005.
What matters most in such investigations, Nelson said, is "what's happening when that situation arises."
"That person's past, their involvement in other activities, is really not relevant," she said.
Nelson noted theACLU was founded amid threats to civil rightsfueled by widespread anti-communist sentiment in the years after World War I, saying there is a "long history of ... the United States government suppressing speech in times of turmoil."
Her organizationsued ICE in Decemberon behalf of several community members, alleging that the federal government had violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by responding to their peaceful protests with "harassment, intimidation, force and detention."
Courtney Hostetler, legal director for Free Speech for People, referred to the reported federal probe into Good's potential activism as an "incredibly dangerous assault on our First Amendment."
She said Americans "should be worried about their First Amendment rights," adding that the nation's founders "understood tyranny would be a constant threat" when they establisheda system of checks and balances.
Different views on role of state, local governments
Hostetler said state and local governments are "one of the strongest mechanisms" in challenging federal overreach and called for them to "stop sitting back" as the Trump administration boosts its presence in their jurisdictions.
ButDavid Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, said "temperatures would be down considerably" if state and local governments committed to working with federal authorities when it comes to immigration enforcement.
"If they would cooperate, it would make things a lot less volatile politically, I think," he said.
Keating also condemned certain rhetoric about ICE, including Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin'sJan. 11 X postcomparing the United States to Iran, wherethousands have reportedly been killedin nationwide protests against the Iranian government. Martin said both countries' governments are displaying "authoritarian behavior," making a comparison that Keating described as "obviously wrong."
USA TODAY reached out to the Democratic National Committee for comment.
Nelson described the federal response to protesters as "disproportional to the conduct" and said such responses are contributing to a "tremendous chill in speech."
"We recognize the need for security, the need for the ability of law enforcement to do their jobs, we recognize all of that," Nelson said. "And there's also a need to make sure that First Amendment rights are not just respected but facilitated."
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her atbjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.Funders do not provide editorial input.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Free speech concerns raised over federal probe into Renee Nicole Good
