Massachusetts
Commonwealth v. Jose Arias
This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias鈥檚 car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The 红杏视频 joined an amicus brief authored by the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
All Cases
20 Massachusetts Cases
Massachusetts
Dec 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
Explore case
Massachusetts
Dec 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services鈥攖he Massachusetts public defender agency鈥攖he 红杏视频 of Massachusetts and the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.
Explore case
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services鈥攖he Massachusetts public defender agency鈥攖he 红杏视频 of Massachusetts and the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts
Jun 2025
Free Speech
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services
The federal government threatened to withhold billions of dollars in research funding from Harvard University after the school refused to adopt the government鈥檚 preferred ideological approach to who it admits to study, who it employs to teach, and what classes and other programs it offers. The 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, and a diverse group of other legal advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief arguing that this is retaliation, coercion, and ideological bullying in violation of the First Amendment.
Explore case
Massachusetts
Jun 2025
Free Speech
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services
The federal government threatened to withhold billions of dollars in research funding from Harvard University after the school refused to adopt the government鈥檚 preferred ideological approach to who it admits to study, who it employs to teach, and what classes and other programs it offers. The 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, and a diverse group of other legal advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief arguing that this is retaliation, coercion, and ideological bullying in violation of the First Amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025
Civil Liberties
APHA v. NIH
APHA v. NIH is a legal challenge to the unprecedented and ideologically-driven purge of hundreds of biomedical research projects by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Years of research on a wide span of critical health issues has been abruptly cancelled, as have grants and programs designed to address the underrepresentation of racial minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged scientists in the biomedical field.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025
Civil Liberties
APHA v. NIH
APHA v. NIH is a legal challenge to the unprecedented and ideologically-driven purge of hundreds of biomedical research projects by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Years of research on a wide span of critical health issues has been abruptly cancelled, as have grants and programs designed to address the underrepresentation of racial minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged scientists in the biomedical field.