Undoubtedly, if Ross or any of his fellow officers were charged, that's the first thing they would do would be to remove it to federal court.

That doesn't mean, though, that it becomes a federal case.

It remains a state prosecution. The state prosecutors would remain in charge of it. They would be the

ones who would try it. It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm senior editor Anna Bauer with Carolyn Shapiro,

founder and co-director of Chicago Kent College of Laws Institute on the Supreme Court.

I'm also joined today by Bryna Goddard, a staff attorney with the State

Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

The president only has the ability to pardon convictions for federal crimes. And even though this

would play out in federal court, it would still be a conviction if there was one for a state law

crime. And so the president would not have pardon power there. Today we're talking about the

state of Minnesota's investigation of Jonathan Ross, the ICE official who reportedly shot and

killed Renee Good in Minneapolis on January 7th. We discussed the state's jurisdiction to investigate a federal official, the obstacles

state prosecutors might face in pursuing the prosecution, and the likelihood that Ross could

raise what's known as Supremacy Clause immunity.

So on January 7th, a federal immigration and customs enforcement agent, Jonathan Ross,

shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the aftermath of this

shooting, the state of Minnesota says that it is conducting an investigation into the shooting. And

Brenna and Carolyn, both of you have kind of served as legal myth busters, in a sense,

in the wake of this shooting. And what I mean by that is that you've both written articles

in lawfare and in Slate,

respectively, about whether the state of Minnesota can prosecute Jonathan Ross or other ICE

officials. And you've done it in the context of senior administration officials making claims, for example,

...