Judge dismisses lawsuit against Northampton's divestment resolution
The dismissal on standing grounds means the court did not rule on whether the resolution itself is lawful, a distinction that concerns supporters who want implementation to proceed.
NORTHAMPTON — A state judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the City Council's divestment resolution by ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the case, handing a victory to the city and supporters of the measure.
Judge Charles Groce dismissed the case on Tuesday without addressing the substantive claims raised by the 10 residents who sued earlier this year, supported by the National Jewish Advocacy Center, to block Northampton's 2025 divestment resolution calling on city officials to divest from entities complicit in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine. The ruling is likely to influence how other municipalities in the region approach similar divestment measures.
The lawsuit claimed the resolution violated the U.S. Constitution by attempting to supersede federal foreign policy and conflicted with state law by directing public investments based on moral rather than purely financial considerations. The city's legal strategy focused on procedural grounds, arguing the resolution was not binding because the City Council lacks authority to direct investment decisions under the city charter. City attorney Jason Talerman said the city was defending the Council's free speech rights while pursuing dismissal on technical rather than substantive grounds.
Thirty Northampton residents, including 20 who identified as Jewish, filed a motion to intervene in the case in June, seeking to defend the resolution's merits rather than rely solely on procedural arguments. Their attorney, Rachel Weber, argued that dismissing the case on standing grounds alone could chill implementation of the resolution if the mayor chose to act on it, potentially inviting fresh litigation. The dismissal rendered the intervention motion moot.
Eve Glazier, an organizer with Northampton Apartheid Divest, told The Shoestring that supporters wanted the case addressed on its merits to ensure the resolution could be lawfully implemented. "We don't want the only reason that the lawsuit doesn't stand to be because it is not actually being implemented," Glazier said. "We want it to be implemented."
Some supporters of the intervention said the lawsuit's true motivation was suppressing criticism of Israel and conflating such criticism with antisemitism. The National Jewish Advocacy Center's mission centers on combating antisemitism, though most of its lawsuits since its 2020 inception have targeted pro-Palestinian speech and criticism of Israel, according to a review by The Shoestring. The organization's associate director, Ben Schlager, disputed this characterization, stating in an email that "the canard that we engage in lawfare" is meritless and challenged opponents to "address the merits of the case."
The ruling arrives as Easthampton's City Council recently took up an identical divestment proposal. Activists there have identified nearly half a million dollars in city investments tied to companies involved in the conflict in Gaza. The decision may also have bearing on cases in other municipalities, such as Medford, which faces a federal lawsuit from the National Jewish Advocacy Center over a values-based investment ordinance.