All corrections
Wikipedia June 29, 2026 at 10:47 PM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good

2 corrections found

1
Claim
Walz proclaimed January 9, 2026, to be "Renee Good Day".
Correction

Governor Tim Walz did not proclaim January 9, 2026 as “Renee Good Day.” He proclaimed it a “Day of Unity” in honor and remembrance of Renée Nicole Good.

Full reasoning

The Minnesota governor’s official press release states that Walz “proclaimed Friday, January 9, 2026, as a Day of Unity” and invited people to participate in acts of service in honor of Renée Nicole Good. The signed gubernatorial proclamation likewise designates January 9, 2026, as a “Day of Unity,” not “Renee Good Day.” So the article misstates the name of the proclamation.

2 sources
  • Governor Walz Declares Day of Unity

    Governor Tim Walz today proclaimed Friday, January 9, 2026, as a Day of Unity, inviting all Minnesotans and Americans to participate in acts of service in honor and remembrance of Renee Nicole Good.

  • Signed proclamation for January 9, 2026

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM WALZ, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim Friday, January 9, 2026, as a Day of Unity.

2
Claim
The previous year, the Supreme Court ruled in Martin v. United States that federal officers are protected from prosecution only to the extent that they acted in a "necessary and proper" fashion in the discharge of their official duties.
Correction

That is not what Martin v. United States held. Martin was an FTCA wrong-house-raid case about suing the federal government, not a ruling that broadly limited criminal prosecution of federal officers to “necessary and proper” conduct.

Full reasoning

The Supreme Court’s June 12, 2025 decision in Martin v. United States addressed whether the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows a family to sue the United States over an FBI raid on the wrong house, and whether the government could invoke a Supremacy Clause defense in that FTCA suit. The Court held that the FTCA’s law-enforcement proviso overrides only the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception, and that the Supremacy Clause does not provide the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The opinion expressly says the lower court’s reliance on In re Neagle was misplaced because Neagle involved a federal officer’s immunity from state criminal prosecution, whereas Martin concerned the federal government’s tort liability under the FTCA. So the article incorrectly characterizes Martin as a Supreme Court ruling that federal officers are protected from prosecution only when their conduct was “necessary and proper.”

2 sources
  • MARTIN v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Held: ... The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. ... The court's reliance on In re Neagle is misplaced, as that 19th-century decision involved a federal officer's immunity from state criminal prosecution ... not the federal government's liability under a statute that expressly subjects it to state tort law.

  • Martin v. United States - SCOTUSblog

    Holding: The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the law enforcement proviso in Section 2680(h) of the act overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout Section 2680.

Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.16.0