A number of videos from Minnesota and elsewhere in the United States show immigration officials from ICE and Border Patrol threatening to arrest civilians for “impeding” their enforcement activities. Sometimes agents will cite a particular federal law in these videos, 18 U.S.C. § 111. That statute does, in fact, criminalize certain actions that can interfere with federal officials’ duties. Some immigration officials think that the statute allows them to arrest people who are following them, recording them, or simply not following their instructions. But there’s good reason to think that those officials are wrong.
Let’s start (as we inevitably must) with the text of the statute. Among other things, section 111 prohibits: “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” (ICE and Border Patrol agents who are engaged in immigration enforcement are covered by this law.)
The video imbedded in this news account from Maine shows immigration officials telling a citizen that merely following them qualifies as “impeding,” and that they would arrest him if he didn’t stop following them. It’s surprising that the officers would say this because the ordinary meaning of the word “impede” is to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something. It would certainly be annoying to have someone follow me around. But it would not prevent me from doing anything. The same goes for recording. I might not want to be recorded, but the recording itself doesn’t make it difficult to go about my daily life.
The statutory problems go beyond the fact that these officers seem to be using the word “impede” incorrectly. They are also ignoring the word “forcibly.” A number of federal courts have interpreted the word “forcibly” in section 111 to modify all of the verbs that come after it, not merely the verb “assault.” United States v. Brown, 125 F.4th 1186, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2025) is one recent example of a court adopting this reading of the statute. But there are plenty of others. In fact, I haven’t found any federal appellate court interpretation that fails to read “forcibly” as applying to all of the prohibited actions, though it’s certainly possible that I missed one.
Is following federal officials around, recording them, or refusing to follow their orders examples of “forcibly” impeding those officials? Not in Minnesota, which is part of the Eight Circuit. In a 1993 decision, the Eight Circuit held that “[f]orce is a necessary element of any § 111 violation,” and that the element of force “may be satisfied by proof of actual physical contact, or by proof of ‘such a threat or display of physical aggression toward the officer as to inspire fear of pain, bodily harm, or death.’” United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1348 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir.1987)). There’s no reasonable argument to be made that a person who is following ICE agents around in a personal car, recording them, and who doesn’t stop doing these things when threatened has engaged in “forcible” behavior. So any detentions or arrests that ICE and Border Patrol make in Minneapolis on those grounds are illegal.
What about actions by immigration officials outside of the Eighth Circuit? The video I mention above, for example, is from Maine, where officials appear to be showing up at people’s houses to tell them that following agents is a crime. Maine is in the First Circuit, not the Eighth.
What conduct is sufficient to violate section 111 depends on the circuits. Some circuits have a pretty narrow interpretation of the law; they require that a person’s actions rise to the level of a simple assault—which following and recording do not—in order to violate section 111. But other circuits don’t, and the Supreme Court so far has declined to resolve that split.
In sum, to the extent that ICE and Border Patrol claim that following them or recording them violates section 111, they seem to be wrong. Perhaps they need to update the “legal refresher” for immigration officials.
