Suit against Noho City Council kicked out of Hampshire Superior Court. (WMP&I)

Less than two weeks after oral arguments on August 26, Hampshire Superior Court Judge Charles Groce dismissed a suit filed over the Northampton City Council’s resolution that called for the city to divest from Israel-connected assets. It was never clear what the originators of the suit hoped to accomplish—the resolution was nonbinding and the city took no action to follow it. Nevertheless, the ruling vindicated the Council’s right to opine on matters of public concern.

The reason for the dismissal was somewhat technical. Judge Groce found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file the suit in the first place. The legal basis to initiate the action requires that a municipality be raising or expending funds. The mere cost of implementing or passing the resolution was insufficient to let the plaintiffs into court.

“The plaintiffs’ assertion that implementation or enforcement would involve the expenditure of staff time and the incurrence of transaction costs does not show the requisite expenditure of money or incurring of obligations,” Groce wrote on September 8.

Because Groce dismissed the suit on this basis, he did not formally reach other questions. Namely, he did not rule on the resolution’s nonbinding nature or the City Council’s speech rights. The city had argued that both issues made the suit inviable.

The resolution came about last year amid growing opposition to the actions of the Israeli government during the war in Gaza. Although Israel launched its offensive in response to Hamas’ brutal attack on October 7, 2023, that response has earned condemnation from publics across the world. The conduct of the war has earned condemnation even among some Israelis.

It is fair to debate whether divestment pushes have any impact or are the best use of municipalities’ time. However, the resolution was explicitly nonbinding. Furthermore, local government bodies of general jurisdiction, as a city council is, have a right to express their own opinion.

Judge Groce might have had 144 reasons to dismiss the suit. He settled on one. (via mass.gov)

The plaintiffs of the suit rested their arguments heavily on speculative action Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra might take. WMP&I has reported that the city treasurer undertook no such action prior to Groce’s ruling. The Northampton Retirement Board had also not taken any action. The Retirement Board was not named in the suit and no elected official in the city directly controls it. Short of any concrete actions by city officials, it was unclear what relief the plaintiffs could have plausibly secured.

The National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC) had initiated the lawsuit on behalf of 10 Northampton residents. The group did not respond to a query about whether an appeal was in the works. However, the NJAC hinted it may take further steps in comments to The Shoestring. As of this posting, plaintiffs had not filed a notice of appeal with Hampshire Superior Court.

Jay Talerman, one of the attorneys Northampton had hired for its defense, indicated Groce’s ruling spoke volumes.

“We are obviously pleased that the court rightly dismissed a baseless attack on the free speech rights of the Northampton City Council,” he emailed.

A group of residents separately sought to intervene in the case. However, Groce denied their motion to join the proceedings as moot.