Jurisdictional Dispute Over ICE Agent Prosecution in Minnesota

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty is challenging a federal attempt to move the criminal case against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Raynold Trevino to federal court. Trevino faces second-degree assault charges stemming from a 2023 incident in Minneapolis. The outcome of this jurisdictional battle will determine whether the trial proceeds in state court or is transferred to federal jurisdiction under the Supremacy Clause.

Why Is the Case Being Moved to Federal Court?

Trevino’s defense team filed a petition to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, citing the “federal officer removal statute.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, federal officers can request to move state criminal proceedings to federal court if the alleged conduct occurred under “color of office.” According to court filings, Trevino claims he was performing his official duties as a federal agent during the encounter, which justifies federal oversight. This statute is intended to protect federal employees from state-level interference while executing their official responsibilities.

How Is the Hennepin County Attorney Responding?

Mary Moriarty argues that the state retains jurisdiction because the alleged actions fall outside the scope of protected federal activity. In her filings, Moriarty contends that the conduct in question does not satisfy the legal threshold for “color of office” protection. Her office maintains that the charges—which involve the use of a firearm during an encounter—constitute a violation of state law that must be adjudicated by a Minnesota jury. Moriarty has emphasized that federal employment does not grant immunity from state criminal statutes when an officer’s actions deviate from official protocols or legal requirements.

What Are the Implications of This Legal Conflict?

The dispute highlights a recurring tension between state prosecutors and federal agencies regarding police powers. If the federal court grants the removal, the case will proceed under federal procedural rules, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office would likely play a more significant role in the proceedings. If the motion is denied, the case will remain in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Minnesota. Legal experts note that federal officer removal cases are fact-intensive, requiring the court to determine whether the defendant was truly acting within the scope of their duties or if they were engaged in a “frolic of their own” that justifies state-level prosecution.

Key Facts at a Glance

• Defendant: Raynold Trevino, an ICE deportation officer.
• Charges: Second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon.
• Incident Date: July 2023.
• Core Legal Question: Whether the conduct occurred under the “color of office,” triggering federal protection under 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
• Venue Dispute: Hennepin County vs. U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

What Happens Next in the Legal Process?

The U.S. District Court must now review the evidence to determine if Trevino’s actions meet the federal standard for immunity from state prosecution. The court will likely hold an evidentiary hearing to hear testimony regarding the specific circumstances of the 2023 encounter. A ruling in favor of removal would effectively strip the state court of its authority to try the case, while a denial would force the federal government to yield to the state’s prosecution. Both the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and the defense are awaiting a scheduling order from the federal judge assigned to the removal motion.