Why DOJ Investigated George Floyd’s Death But Not Renee Good’s

Last updated 7 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On January 7, 2026, a Minneapolis woman sits in her car on a residential street. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fires three shots as she drives away in her Honda Pilot SUV after receiving conflicting orders from ICE agents. She dies from a gunshot wound to the head. The Justice Department announces there is “no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation.” The specialized unit that has investigated law enforcement shootings across Republican and Democratic administrations for decades was not permitted to conduct its standard preliminary review of the evidence.

Six years earlier, in the same city, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes. The Civil Rights Division mobilized its specialized prosecutors. Prosecutors deployed to the city, interviewed witnesses, reviewed training records, examined departmental policies. The investigation led to Chauvin’s conviction on federal civil rights charges.

Same city. Same type of incident—a law enforcement officer killing an unarmed American citizen, captured on video, sparking immediate national controversy. Completely different federal response.

The difference wasn’t the law. The Civil Rights Division has used it to investigate police shootings as a routine function for many decades.

What changed was who runs the Justice Department.

Development of Civil Rights Investigations as Standard Practice

The expectation that the Justice Department would investigate law enforcement killings developed across decades, administration after administration, as the Civil Rights Division expanded from the Civil Rights Unit established around 1939 to include investigating whether officers violated constitutional rights through using more force than necessary or reasonable under the circumstances.

By the late twentieth century, this had become standard practice. When a police officer or federal agent killed someone under questionable circumstances, the assumption was that the division would at minimum conduct a first look at the evidence. Career prosecutors would examine whether sufficient facts existed to warrant fuller investigation. They’d review training records, departmental policies, witness statements, video evidence. Only after this work could they determine whether to proceed with a grand jury investigation.

This practice crossed party lines because it reflected a bipartisan consensus: officers who violate constitutional rights should face investigation and potential prosecution. When George Floyd died in May 2020, the Civil Rights Division mobilized its specialized prosecutors without hesitation.

That’s the established practice the Good case has upended.

The Floyd Investigation

Floyd, a Black man, died on May 25, 2020, after Chauvin’s knee compressed his neck while he lay handcuffed and face-down on pavement. Bystanders captured video. The footage sparked immediate national outrage and protests against police brutality.

The Civil Rights Division’s response reflected standard operating procedure. Prosecutors from the unit that handles criminal cases assembled a team. They traveled to the city. They began a first look at the evidence: interviewing witnesses, reviewing police department policies on use of force, examining Chauvin’s training records and personnel file for prior complaints, assessing medical evidence regarding cause of death. The investigation proceeded with experienced prosecutors who aren’t political appointees and have investigated similar cases before directing the inquiry.

The result: Derek Chauvin’s conviction on federal charges of violating George Floyd’s constitutional rights, added to his state murder conviction.

What the Good Case Did Not Receive

Renee Good was a 37-year-old mother. On January 7, she was present on a residential street where ICE enforcement operations were underway. ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot her multiple times while her vehicle was moving.

Like the Floyd case: same city, video evidence, immediate national controversy, calls for federal investigation.

Unlike the Floyd case: The Civil Rights Division was never permitted to begin a first look at the evidence. Before evidence had been collected through standard civil rights investigation procedures. Before witnesses had been interviewed by civil rights prosecutors. Before any first look had been conducted by the specialized unit with expertise in such cases.

According to multiple reports, federal investigators at the FBI and Justice Department were instructed to analyze any connections Good might have had to activist groups protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The investigation shifted from examining the officer’s conduct to examining the victim’s political associations.

This represents a fundamentally different investigative approach than what civil rights prosecutors would normally conduct.

Standard Civil Rights Investigation Procedures

In the Floyd case, Civil Rights Division investigators examined Derek Chauvin’s training records—specifically what he’d been taught about use of force, restraint techniques, ways to calm down a situation and avoid using force. They reviewed police department written policies to determine whether Chauvin’s conduct fell within authorized procedures or violated departmental standards. They interviewed witnesses, including other officers present and bystanders who recorded video. They reviewed medical evidence and cause of death determinations. They examined Chauvin’s personnel file for prior complaints or patterns of problematic conduct.

In a proper civil rights first look into the Good case, investigators would have examined whether ICE officer Jonathan Ross received training on use of force in crowded situations, on interactions with unarmed individuals in vehicles, on ways to calm down situations and avoid using force. They would have reviewed federal ICE policies on use of force and whether Ross’s conduct fell within those policies or exceeded them. They would have examined Ross’s training records, prior complaints, any prior incidents involving use of force. They would have reviewed video evidence frame-by-frame to assess Ross’s positioning, whether he was in danger of being struck by the vehicle, whether the vehicle was moving toward or away from him, whether less lethal alternatives existed. They would have interviewed witnesses about Ross’s conduct and warnings he gave before firing.

Instead, according to reporting, the federal investigation examined Good’s associations and political views. Not the officer’s training. Not departmental policies. Not whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.

Federal and State Authority in the Good Case

In the Floyd case, state and federal investigations proceeded in parallel. The FBI and Minnesota authorities worked to investigate different legal aspects of the case. State prosecutors pursued state criminal charges while federal prosecutors pursued federal civil rights charges. Chauvin was convicted at both state and federal levels.

In the Good case, federal authorities explicitly prevented state investigators from accessing evidence gathered in the federal investigation. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was informed by the FBI that it would not be sharing evidence and would be conducting the investigation without state participation.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty have attempted to pursue their own investigation despite this federal exclusion. But without access to federal evidence, their ability to conduct a complete investigation is severely hampered.

Minnesota clearly has authority to investigate and prosecute crimes that occur within its borders. Federal civil rights violations don’t eliminate state authority—both exist simultaneously. Minnesota prosecutors have the authority to investigate and charge a federal officer who violates state law, as Idaho prosecutors charged an FBI officer with involuntary manslaughter in the Ruby Ridge incident, and as state prosecutors successfully prosecuted Derek Chauvin on state murder charges even as federal prosecutors pursued federal civil rights charges.

The federal assertion of exclusive control over evidence appears motivated by a desire to prevent state prosecutors from developing evidence that might support criminal prosecution of the ICE officer. This represents an unusual use of federal authority not to ensure that a federal offense is investigated and prosecuted, but rather to prevent state investigation of a state crime. It inverts the normal relationship between federal and state authorities in cases where both state and federal law apply, where both jurisdictions work cooperatively rather than the federal government actively obstructing state investigation.

Changes in Leadership and Civil Rights Priorities

When George Floyd was killed in May 2020, the Civil Rights Division operated under Attorney General William Barr in Trump’s first administration. The department still maintained the basic practice of investigating law enforcement shootings through the Civil Rights Division.

By January 2026, when Renee Good was shot, new administration leadership had taken control. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche have overseen significant changes to civil rights priorities. The Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon has shifted its focus away from investigating law enforcement conduct. Several sources indicate that Dhillon’s division has reorganized to prioritize other areas, including creation of a Second Amendment division focused on gun rights cases.

The decision not to investigate Good’s case appears to reflect a deliberate policy choice by current leadership rather than a determination based on the facts of the case. The stated rationale—that there is “no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation”—appears at odds with the standard criteria applied in similar cases. A law enforcement officer’s shooting of an unarmed citizen, captured on video, in circumstances disputed by witnesses and officials, would normally trigger at minimum a first look to assess whether federal charges might be warranted.

Personnel and Prosecutorial Expertise

In the Floyd case, the investigation was opened by U.S. Attorney Erica MacDonald working with Civil Rights Division prosecutors who had expertise in law enforcement use-of-force cases. Prosecutors with years of background investigating similar cases, understanding the legal standards, knowing what evidence was typically relevant.

In the Good case, the decision not to investigate came from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Harmeet Dhillon. None of these individuals bring extensive background in civil rights prosecution or law enforcement investigations.

Understanding of standard investigative procedures and the legal standards that guide such investigations rests with experienced prosecutors who aren’t political appointees and have investigated similar cases before, not officials chosen by the president. When those officials override experienced prosecutors’ judgment about whether a case meets the criteria for investigation, the result can be decisions that depart from the institution’s established practices and expertise.

The resignations of prosecutors from the Civil Rights Division underscore this tension. These individuals had reportedly pushed for investigation or at minimum for a first look, believing the case met the criteria. Their departures suggest they believed the decision not to investigate violated the division’s core mission and standard operating procedures. Some of the departing prosecutors apparently expressed concerns to colleagues that instead of investigating the officer who shot Good, the department was investigating Renee Good herself—or more specifically, her associations and relationships—as a way to retroactively justify the shooting.

The Legal Standard for Civil Rights Violations

Federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 242 establishes that it’s a federal crime for anyone acting in their official capacity as a government officer to knowingly or recklessly violate another person’s constitutional rights. For a law enforcement shooting to constitute a federal civil rights violation, prosecutors need to prove that the officer used force that was unreasonable or more than necessary under the circumstances and that the officer did so knowingly or recklessly.

“Knowingly or recklessly” is the high bar. It means the officer knew or reasonably should have known that his conduct violated constitutional rights. This is why civil rights investigations examine training records, departmental policies, prior warnings, and the circumstances of the specific incident. Prosecutors need to establish not that the force was more than necessary, but that the officer acted with knowledge that it was unlawful.

The first look exists because this determination requires gathering evidence. Prosecutors can’t assess whether the “knowingly or recklessly” standard is met without examining what training the officer received, what policies governed his conduct, what warnings he’d been given about similar conduct in the past, and what the specific circumstances of the incident were.

Declaring “no basis” for investigation before conducting this first look means making a determination about the officer’s state of mind and the reasonableness of his conduct without examining the evidence that would normally inform that determination. Legal experts and former officials have stated that excluding the Civil Rights Division from a decision about investigating law enforcement shootings is without precedent in recent history. The department’s own manuals and procedures anticipate that such cases will receive Civil Rights Division attention.

Federal Officer Immunity and Accountability

Vice President JD Vance argued immediately after the shooting that the ICE officer had “complete legal protection from being prosecuted” and could not be held accountable under federal law. His statement reflects an apparent administration view that the officer should not face criminal accountability.

Federal officers performing their duties under federal law cannot be prosecuted by states for those actions, established in an 1890 Supreme Court case called In re Neagle. But this immunity is not complete. It applies when the officer was acting as part of their job responsibilities and when the actions were required to do their federal job.

Whether shooting an unarmed woman in her car on a residential street falls as part of an ICE officer’s job responsibilities and whether that shooting was required to do their federal job are precisely the questions that a civil rights investigation would examine. By preventing that investigation and by asserting federal authority in a way that prevents state investigation, the administration appears to be preventing investigation at any level. The effect is to insulate the ICE officer from serious criminal investigation by any authority—federal or state.

The Family’s Recourse

Renee Good’s family has hired Ben Crump, the same civil rights lawyer who represented George Floyd’s family, seeking answers about what led to her death and pursuing civil lawsuits instead of criminal investigation. Minnesota state officials are pursuing their own limited investigation despite lack of access to federal evidence.

The federal government, which possesses the evidence, the investigative authority, and the legal tools necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into whether federal civil rights law was violated, has chosen not to do so.

The family’s civil lawsuit may eventually produce some answers through discovery. But civil litigation is not a substitute for criminal investigation. The standards are different. The remedies are different. When the department investigates a law enforcement killing, it sends a message that the government takes seriously its obligation to ensure that officers don’t violate constitutional rights. When the department declines to investigate, it sends a different message: that some killings by law enforcement don’t warrant federal scrutiny.

Implications for Civil Rights Enforcement

The Good case presents a choice about what role the department will play in investigating federal law enforcement. For many decades, the Civil Rights Division has investigated law enforcement shootings as a routine function of protecting people’s civil rights. This practice has been maintained across administrations because it represents a bipartisan recognition that officers who violate constitutional rights should face investigation and potential prosecution.

The current approach to the Good case suggests that this consensus may be breaking down, at least in cases where the officer was carrying out administration priorities. The Trump administration has made aggressive immigration practices a central policy priority. The ICE officer involved in the Good case was carrying out this administration’s stated policy of increased operations in the city. In this context, investigating whether the officer violated civil rights law might be seen by administration officials as investigating its own policy priorities.

But the existence of civil rights law depends on the willingness to investigate violations regardless of the agency or political allegiances of the officer involved. If the Civil Rights Division investigates local police officers but not federal officers, if it investigates officers in Democratic administrations but not in Republican administrations, if it investigates some victims’ deaths but not others based on the political context of the shooting, then civil rights law becomes applied to some people but not others based on politics.

The resignations of experienced prosecutors from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota suggest that those individuals believe something fundamental about the department’s role and mission has shifted. These are public servants who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and apply federal law without regard to political considerations. Their departures represent a loss of experience and understanding that will make the Civil Rights Division less capable of conducting the investigations it was created to conduct. More significantly, their departures signal that something has changed in how the department understands its job of protecting people’s civil rights.

Precedent for Future Cases

The implications extend beyond the immediate question of whether a particular officer will face criminal prosecution. The decision to exclude the Civil Rights Division from investigating a law enforcement shooting represents a choice about whether the federal government will maintain its historic role in investigating whether law enforcement officers violate citizens’ constitutional rights.

If the Civil Rights Division doesn’t investigate such cases, then who does? The FBI is a criminal investigation agency with different expertise and different priorities than a specialized civil rights section. State investigators, as shown in the Good case, may be prevented from gathering evidence. This leaves potentially no institution with the capability and authority to conduct a professional investigation into whether federal civil rights law was violated.

The decision to investigate the victim’s political associations rather than the officer’s conduct sends a message about whose rights are prioritized. It suggests that exercising First Amendment rights to protest government policy can be used to justify government violence against protesters. It inverts the normal relationship between citizens and law enforcement, where officers are expected to protect citizens’ constitutional rights even—especially—when those citizens are exercising those rights in ways that criticize government policy.

From the standpoint of whether the government is answerable to the people, the Good case raises concerns about whether the department is willing to investigate federal law enforcement when it disagrees with the administration’s priorities. If civil rights investigations become contingent on whether the officer was carrying out administration policy, then civil rights law becomes a tool for selective application rather than a check on government power.

The stark contrast between how the department investigated George Floyd’s death and how it has failed to investigate Renee Good’s death illustrates how practices can shift when personnel change without any modification to underlying law. The Civil Rights Division’s authority to investigate law enforcement use of force remains the same. The legal standards that govern federal civil rights prosecutions remain unchanged. Federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 242 applies with equal force to shootings by ICE officers as to shootings by local police officers.

What has changed is the willingness of current leadership to use the investigative authority that exists. By excluding the Civil Rights Division from the decision about whether to investigate, by preventing even a first look from occurring, and by asserting federal authority in a way that prevents state investigation, the administration has effectively insulated the ICE officer from serious criminal investigation at any level. This choice—a break with many decades of practice—may ultimately prove more consequential than the shooting itself, as it establishes a precedent that federal law enforcement officers need not fear civil rights investigation when they act in service of administration policy priorities.

Renee Good was shot on a street while her vehicle was moving. George Floyd died on a street while lying on the pavement. Both were American citizens. Both deaths were captured on video. Both sparked immediate calls for federal investigation.

One investigation happened. The other didn’t.

The difference wasn’t the law. It was who decided whether the law would be applied.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.