Renee Good Lawsuits: Two Legal Tracks Over the Minneapolis Shooting
On October 1, 2026, the wife and brother of Renee Nicole Macklin Good filed two federal lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota over her fatal shooting in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. The plaintiffs are Rebecca (Becca) Good, described as Renee Good's wife and partner, and Brent Ganger, her brother, suing as trustee for her next of kin, including her three minor children, parents and siblings.
Good was 37, a U.S. citizen and mother of three. According to the family's account, she was shot and killed in her car in Minneapolis while protesting the deployment of ICE agents. The Guardian reported that Becca Good was standing feet from the couple's vehicle when immigration agent Jonathan Ross fired three rounds into it. One complaint alleges Renee Good was unarmed when she was shot. The complaints state that neither Renee Good nor Becca Good was the target of any investigation on the morning of January 7.
The filings use a two-track approach common in federal use-of-force litigation, like two parallel lanes. The first suit names the United States as the sole defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the law that permits wrongful-death and negligence claims against the federal government under state law. It alleges wrongful death under Minnesota law and negligence connected to the shooting, and seeks damages for her death. It alleges Ross violated Department of Homeland Security use-of-force policies during the encounter, which the suits link to Operation Metro Surge.
The second suit names individual federal agents and officials. Ross is a defendant. The conspiracy allegations reach senior leadership, naming former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and former Border Patrol officer Gregory Bovino. The complaint also names Corey R. Lewandowski, Thomas D. Homan and Todd Lyons, along with John Doe Federal Agents 1-10, according to the announcement from the family's counsel. Romanucci & Blandin
That second action alleges wrongful death and other violations of federal law. It accuses Ross of violating Good's Fourth Amendment rights — the constitutional protection against unreasonable seizure — through excessive force. It further alleges conspiracy to interfere with civil rights by senior federal officials and federal immigration enforcement agents. Reuters described the negligence and civil-rights claims against Trump administration officials, while other reporting on the complaints cited allegations of a federal conspiracy with discriminatory design and authorized use of force against observers in Minneapolis.
The family is represented by founding partner Antonio M. Romanucci and a team from Romanucci & Blandin. The firm said it opened a civil investigation into the shooting death on January 14 and, on behalf of the family, sent an evidence-preservation letter to the federal government the next day. Its October 1 announcement formalized the investigation into filed complaints. Good's fatal shooting set off protests.
The broader context here is jurisdictional and evidentiary as much as political. A Federal Tort Claims Act case against the United States tests whether planning, supervision and on-the-ground decisions around Operation Metro Surge breached duties owed under state tort law. An individual-capacity case tests different thresholds: personal involvement, authorization, and whether force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, plus whether officials acted in concert to deprive observers of civil rights.
Looking at what this means for litigants and institutions, discovery will be central. Preservation, chain of custody for video and communications, training materials, rules of engagement, and internal assessments of compliance with DHS force policies will shape both tracks. Immunity defenses, the scope of authorized duties, and the line between operational discretion and alleged constitutional violation will likely define early motion practice. For policymakers and enforcement agencies, the parallel structure keeps institutional liability and individual accountability on separate clocks, with different burdens, defenses and settlement incentives.
