No, South Carolina Has Not Introduced an “Alex Pretti Act” to End ICE Immunity

A viral graphic claims that a new law called the “Alex Pretti Act” will create legal action against ICE agents for misconduct and remove their immunity after the 2026 midterm elections. The claim is misleading.

The graphic says the legislation is connected to the South Carolina Legislature and suggests that the measure will come after the midterms.

There is no evidence that an “Alex Pretti Act” exists under that name. A fact-check published after the claim circulated found no congressional record or credible reporting showing that lawmakers had introduced or formally planned legislation with that title.

However, there is real legislation aimed at making federal immigration agents more accountable, and there is also a real South Carolina resolution concerning Pretti. Those developments appear to have been mixed together in the viral post.

South Carolina did introduce a resolution honoring Alex Pretti

The South Carolina House introduced H. 5034 on Jan. 28, 2026.

The official South Carolina Legislature describes it as a House resolution, not an “Alex Pretti Act.” It honored Pretti, condemned his killing by federal agents and called on the federal government to hold accountable people who violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

The resolution specifically referenced Pretti's status as a 37-year-old intensive-care nurse and his carrying of a handgun under Minnesota law. It also criticized the use of masks by federal agents and called for greater accountability.

South Carolina's House journal shows that the resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

That is very different from creating a new state law eliminating immunity for ICE agents.

What happened to Alex Pretti?

Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, 2026, during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operation.

Federal authorities initially said Pretti approached officers with a handgun and characterized the shooting as defensive. But subsequent video analysis by major news organizations raised questions about that account.

CNN's review of multiple videos showed Pretti holding a cellphone rather than a gun during an earlier part of the confrontation. The footage showed federal officers approaching and physically engaging him before he was shot.

ABC News likewise reported that video it reviewed did not appear to show Pretti drawing his weapon at the officers. Officials in Minnesota said he was legally carrying a gun with a concealed-carry permit.

The circumstances surrounding his death subsequently became a major political and legal controversy.

A real “No Kings Act” is moving through California

The legislation that most closely resembles the claim in the graphic is California Senate Bill 747, known as the “No Kings Act.”

It was introduced by California state Sen. Scott Wiener and is designed to give people a state-law pathway to seek damages when government officials violate their constitutional rights.

The measure specifically covers federal officers, including ICE and Border Patrol agents, as well as state and local officials.

California's Senate passed the legislation 30-10 in January. The bill later cleared the California Legislature in August, according to Wiener, who said it would allow Californians to take federal agents to court for constitutional violations.

The legislation was explicitly promoted in the aftermath of the Minneapolis shootings involving Pretti and Renee Good.

But it is California legislation — not a South Carolina “Alex Pretti Act.”

It also does not simply “remove all immunity”

The viral wording is another important oversimplification.

California's SB 747 creates a state cause of action for constitutional violations. The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis says the measure creates a state-level analogue to Section 1983 and provides a mechanism for lawsuits against government officials. But the bill also incorporates existing governmental immunities.

In other words, the legal issue is more complicated than saying that every ICE agent would suddenly have “no immunity.”

The measure is intended to provide a route to civil damages for constitutional violations such as excessive force, unlawful searches or seizures and certain equal-protection violations.

The “after the midterms” claim is also unsupported

The graphic suggests the supposed legislation will come after the 2026 midterm elections.

There is no evidence in the South Carolina legislative record cited above establishing such a plan.

South Carolina's actual H. 5034 was introduced in January 2026, months before the November midterms. Its official description is a resolution honoring Pretti and calling for federal accountability — not a future statute eliminating ICE immunity.

A separate report about the 2026 elections noted that immigration enforcement and federal power were already major issues heading into the midterms, but that does not establish the existence of an “Alex Pretti Act.”

What the viral graphic gets right — and what it gets wrong

What is true:

• Alex Pretti was a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen who was fatally shot by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.
• His death generated significant controversy over the use of force and federal-agent accountability.
• South Carolina lawmakers introduced a resolution honoring Pretti and calling for accountability.
• California lawmakers introduced and advanced legislation intended to make it easier to sue government officials, including federal immigration agents, for constitutional violations.

What is misleading or unsupported:

• There is no verified “Alex Pretti Act.”
• South Carolina's H. 5034 is a resolution, not an immunity-ending law.
• The legislation most closely matching the graphic is California's No Kings Act, SB 747.
• There is no verified evidence that South Carolina plans to pass an “Alex Pretti Act” after the midterms.
• “No immunity” is an oversimplification of what the California legislation actually does.

Bottom line

The viral graphic appears to combine three separate developments — Alex Pretti's death, a South Carolina resolution honoring him, and California's No Kings Act — and present them as one forthcoming piece of legislation.

That makes the central claim misleading. There is a genuine national fight over whether ICE and other federal agents should face greater civil liability for alleged misconduct, but the evidence does not support the existence of a South Carolina “Alex Pretti Act” as described in the graphic.