Court Cases

In March 2025, doctors from Harvard Medical School challenged the removal of their articles from the Patient Safety Network (PSNet), a government-run website for doctors and medical researchers to share information about medical errors, misdiagnoses, and patient outcomes. The papers were removed as part of a takedown of information that the government contends promotes “gender ideology,” including any articles containing certain prohibited terms, including “LGBTQ” and “trans[gender].” The articles removed include “Endometriosis: A Common and Commonly Missed and Delayed Diagnosis,” co-authored by plaintiff Dr. Celeste Royce, which included a sentence about diagnosis in transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and “Multiple Missed Opportunities for Suicide Risk Assessment in Emergency and Primary Care Settings,” co-authored by plaintiff Dr. Gordon Schiff, which included a sentence about heightened risk in LGBTQ communities. The researchers are represented by the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Massachusetts. In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that required federal agencies to remove all statements that “promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.” The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) subsequently issued guidance directing all agencies to “[t]ake down all outward facing media (websites, social media accounts, etc.) that inculcate or promote gender ideology.” PSNet’s removal of articles based on blacklisted terms followed. PSNet is run by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a sub-agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The suit argues that the government violated the First Amendment by imposing a viewpoint-based and unreasonable restriction on the doctors’ participation in a forum the government has opened to private speakers. It also argues that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act, including by removing articles without a reasoned basis. OPM, AHRQ, and HHS are named in the suit. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In April 2025, researchers, along with American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health, filed a lawsuit challenging the abrupt cancellation of research grants by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. The grants were cancelled after NIH staff were directed to eliminate research on disfavored topics and populations without clear guidance or justification – jeopardizing critical medical discoveries that drive advancements in diagnosing, preventing, and treating life-threatening diseases. In February, the NIH began a reckless purge of federal grants, halting application processes midstream, and stripping funding opportunities from its website. Hundreds of research projects — many of which had been underway for years, representing thousands of hours of work and billions of dollars in investment — were abruptly cancelled without a scientifically valid explanation. NIH attempted to justify the first wave of its sweeping grant cancellations by vaguely citing connections to “gender identity” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), without defining these terms or explaining how they apply to the terminated research. As a result, critical studies addressing urgent health disparities — designed to develop prioritized strategies for populations at the highest risk of disease — were indiscriminately wiped out. This eradication of research expanded to include research on “vaccine hesitancy,” “COVID,” and any research being conducted or involving labs located in South Africa and China. This unprecedented purge marks a sharp departure from the NIH’s longstanding approach, in which funding decisions have been guided by congressional mandates, regulatory requirements, and scientific expertise. NIH grants are among the most competitive and rigorously vetted research funding opportunities in the world, undergoing multiple layers of expert review. Most applications submitted are rejected, and until the time of filing, terminations had been exceedingly rare. Training grants, some of which are designed to facilitate the entry of researchers from historically underrepresented groups into the biomedical field as mandated by Congress, were also canceled, jeopardizing opportunities for the best and the brightest of the next generation of scientists, particularly harming racial and ethnic minorities, women, people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and those from rural communities. The researchers, along with APHA, which has 23,000 public health professional members, UAW, a union of 120,000 workers including graduate students, postdocs, researchers, and faculty in higher education, and Ibis Reproductive Health, a global research organization, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, Protect Democracy, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the NIH, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The lawsuit claims the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by acting arbitrarily and without justification, failing to provide scientific reasoning or follow proper procedures. NIH also exceeded its legal authority by disregarding congressional mandates to fund health disparities research and address the underrepresentation of certain groups in the medical field, and by failing to comply with grant termination regulations. Additionally, the lawsuit argues that NIH’s actions violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections by canceling grants based on vague and undefined criteria. The lawsuit seeks to restore funding to researchers whose grants were unlawfully terminated and to prevent the NIH from continuing to cut awards in this arbitrary and unlawful manner.

In September 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, together with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, the law firm Araujo and Fisher, the law firm Foley Hoag, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, filed a class action lawsuit in federal court to challenge the widespread denial of bond hearings to people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As the complaint demonstrates, this denial upends decades of settled law and established practice in immigration proceedings. The complaint alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice recently and abruptly began to misclassify people arrested by ICE inside the United States. DHS and DOJ started systematically reclassifying these people from the statutory authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which usually allows for the opportunity to request bond during removal proceedings, to the no-bond detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not apply to people arrested in the interior of the United States and placed in removal proceedings. This case is brought on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Mr. Guerrero Orellana has been living in the United States for over a decade. He brings this case to vindicate his own right to a bond hearing — where an immigration judge can determine whether his detention is justified to protect the community or ensure his appearance in court — and that of thousands of other detainees in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire who will be denied the opportunity to seek release on bond under the new legal ruling adopted by the executive branch. The complaint alleges that the government's new policy violates constitutional and statutory due process rights as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

Update: In March 2024, the Rural Justice Network and ACLU of Massachusetts announced a settlement in their lawsuit against the Town of North Brookfield, following an earlier announcement that a local Pride event will go forward as planned on June 29. In December 2023, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the North Brookfield Select Board and two of its members after they refused to grant permission for a 2024 Pride celebration on the Town Common because the event would include drag performance. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Rural Justice Network. According to the complaint, the Select Board’s actions violate free expression and assembly rights, and unlawfully discriminate on the basis of gender. Furthermore, by denying this permit, the Select Board continues an alleged pattern of discriminatory treatment. In October 2023, the Rural Justice Network requested permission to host its fourth annual Small Town Pride celebration on the North Brookfield Town Common in June 2024. During a November Board meeting, after event organizers confirmed the celebration would include a drag performance that would not be hidden from public view in a tent, the Chair and Vice Chair refused to approve the Rural Justice Network’s request and explained that the decision meant that the application for the event permit “doesn’t go forward.” This followed the Chair and Vice Chair’s previous attempts to deny the Rural Justice Network the right to include any drag performance in its 2023 Small Town Pride celebration — simply because the officials personally believed that such performance is “wrong.” The 2023 event ultimately went forward as planned after the ACLU and North Brookfield’s legal counsel became involved. In the face of the clear legal advice previously provided, this lawsuit alleges that the latest action by the Chair and Vice Chair is a blatant and intentional violation of free speech, assembly, and anti-discrimination laws. The lawsuit, filed in Worcester County Superior Court, seeks relief to allow the Rural Justice Network to host its 2024 Small Town Pride celebration, including drag performance, and to prevent further obstruction in the future.

In May 2023, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a public records lawsuit against the Office of the State Auditor for wrongfully withholding documents related to prisoner deaths and health care at the houses of correction in two counties.

The ACLU and Todd & Weld filed a lawsuit on behalf of Michael Okosi, seeking justice for the harm he suffered—including physical and emotional injuries—based on the lies of one police officer.

The ACLU of Massachusetts, together with law firm Wolf Greenfield, filed a lawsuit against two Massachusetts agencies for failing to produce public records regarding the state’s use of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) technology.