Legal Group Sounds Alarm on Constitutional Crisis Over Protest Deaths

DALLAS, TX – January 27, 2026 – The American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), a prestigious national organization of trial lawyers and judges, issued a powerful and urgent call today for an independent investigation into the alleged fatal shootings of two protestors by federal agents in Minneapolis. The group is also demanding the immediate withdrawal of these agents, warning that the incidents represent a grave threat to the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.

In a statement released on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, ABOTA detailed the alleged events that prompted its extraordinary intervention. The organization cited the death of Renee Nicole Good on January 7, who was reportedly shot by a masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent while protesting in her neighborhood. It further cited the death of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was allegedly shot by an ICE agent during a protest rally on January 24. While these specific incidents have not yet been independently verified by major news outlets, ABOTA's statement frames them as a direct assault on fundamental American liberties.

First Amendment Rights in Jeopardy

At the core of ABOTA's alarm is the perceived violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. The organization argues that when citizens fear for their lives while exercising these rights, the very foundation of democracy is imperiled.

"The rights to free speech and peaceful assembly lie at the heart of a functioning democracy, where the Rule of Law protects ordinary citizens who participate in the checks and balances of power," stated William D. Shapiro, National President of ABOTA, in the press release. "Those rights are imperiled when people fear that exercising their voice may cost them their lives."

The statement emphasizes that using armed authority to quell dissent is a danger that the First Amendment was specifically designed to confront. Shapiro argues that responding to protests with lethal force goes beyond a simple constitutional violation; it "threatens to extinguish all constitutional rights." This perspective connects the alleged events in Minneapolis to a broader potential collapse of the legal order, where the state can act with impunity against its own citizens.

"As attorneys and officers of the court, we are bound by oath and conscience to defend the Constitution, to protect the powerless, and to insist that no one is above the law," the statement continues, positioning the call to action not just as a political stance, but as a fulfillment of their professional and ethical duty.

A Respected Voice Enters the Fray

The intervention by the American Board of Trial Advocates is particularly significant due to the nature of the organization. ABOTA is an invitation-only association of 7,000 of the nation's most experienced trial lawyers and judges. Its primary mission has historically been the preservation of the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a civil jury trial.

While not typically at the forefront of street-level protest advocacy like organizations such as the ACLU, ABOTA's focus on judicial independence and the integrity of the legal system gives its statement immense weight within the legal and political communities. By stepping into this highly charged controversy, the organization signals that the alleged actions in Minneapolis are viewed as a fundamental threat that transcends specific legal clauses and strikes at the heart of the entire constitutional structure they are sworn to uphold.

Their advocacy for the Seventh Amendment is rooted in the belief that the jury trial is a crucial check on governmental and corporate power. The statement draws a direct line from this belief to the current crisis, noting, "ABOTA's dedication to the Seventh Amendment and judicial independence is meaningless without a robust Rule of Law that restrains the arbitrary use of state power."

A Contentious History of Federal Intervention

The scenario described by ABOTA, while alarming, echoes past controversies surrounding the deployment of federal agents during domestic protests. In recent years, cities like Portland, Oregon, have seen tense and often violent confrontations between protestors and federal law enforcement from agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Those deployments raised profound legal and constitutional questions about the scope of federal authority, the rules of engagement for agents in crowd-control situations, and the impact on First Amendment rights. Legal precedent, such as the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Connor, establishes that law enforcement's use of force must be "objectively reasonable." The use of lethal force is even more restricted, generally permitted only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury, a standard set by Tennessee v. Garner.

Applying such force against individuals engaged in protest, as alleged in the ABOTA statement, would represent a severe departure from these legal standards. Critics of past federal interventions have argued that deploying agents ill-equipped or untrained for managing civilian demonstrations can escalate tensions and lead to the very violence they are supposedly meant to prevent. ABOTA's call for the withdrawal of federal agents from Minnesota reflects this concern, suggesting that their presence is a source of conflict rather than a solution.

The organization's statement directly confronts the potential justifications for such actions, declaring, "Safety and security are not achieved by dehumanizing the dead through false accusations, by normalizing arbitrary arrest and abduction, or by demanding silence in the face of excessive violence against ordinary citizens." This powerful rhetoric challenges any narrative that might seek to blame the victims or downplay the severity of using lethal force against dissent. By petitioning all branches of government, ABOTA is demanding a comprehensive response that reaffirms constitutional accountability and restores faith in the principle that no agent of the state is above the law. The coming days will reveal whether government bodies will heed this call and how the unverified, yet deeply troubling, allegations from Minneapolis will be addressed.