Interested parties may file their briefs in the Office of the Clerk for the Commonwealth, John Adams Courthouse, Suite 1-400, One Pemberton Square, Boston MA 02108-1724. Phone: 617-557-1020

Parties filing amicus briefs are expected to comply with the requirements of Rules 17,19 and 20 of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. Amicus briefs, to assist the court, should focus on the ramifications of a decision and not solely on the interests of the parties filing such briefs. Amicus submissions are due no later than two weeks before the first day of the sitting in which the case is scheduled for argument.

The below are solicitations for amicus briefs from the Supreme Judicial Court. Amicus Announcements posted from September 2015 to August 2016 are online here. Click here to see solicitations for amicus briefs from the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

The Supreme Judicial Court is soliciting amicus briefs or memoranda from interested parties in the following matters pending before the court:  

September 2016 Announcements

Matter of N. L.

In the context of civil commitment or treatment proceedings, whether the denial of a respondent's first request for a continuance of a hearing is barred by G. L. c. 123, §§ 5, 7 or 8B; whether, or in what manner, G. L. c. 123, §§ 5, 7 or 8B, limit a judge's discretion to deny a respondent's first request for a continuance of a hearing.

In re Guardianship of a Minor

In proceedings for appointment of a guardian for an immigrant under the age of twenty-one, what showing must be made to establish that “reunification with one or both of the immigrant’s parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (27) (J), for purposes of eligibility for special immigrant juvenile status under Federal law.

Commonwealth vs. R. A.
Whether or in what circumstances an individual involuntarily brought to, and temporarily detained in, a psychiatric unit of a hospital and allegedly threatened with involuntary medication, may assert an affirmative defense in the nature of self-defense; what instructions should a jury be given concerning refusal of medication.

Kevin Bridgeman & others vs. District Attorney for Suffolk County & others.  
Whether the persons who were convicted of drug-related charges and in whose cases former Hinton Drug Lab Assistant Analyst Annie Dookhan signed the certificate of drug analysis as the analyst, who are collectively referred to as the "Dookhan defendants," are entitled to a comprehensive remedy, including, whether all cases involving misconduct by Dookhan should be dismissed or subjected to a court-imposed deadline.  

William Hebb vs. Commonwealth
Where the defendant had been charged with operating under the influence of alcohol and, as part of his first trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the impairment theory and the judge declared a mistrial on the per se theory, whether being recharged for the crime violates double jeopardy principles.  

Kristi Koe vs. Edward Dolan, Commissioner of Probation, & others
Where the plaintiff is a former sex offender who has been relieved of the obligation to register, whether the provisions G. L. c. 276, § 100A(6), that restrict her eligibility to seal her sex offender records, violates her equal protection and due process rights under the Federal and State constitutions.  

Cape Wind Assocs., LLC vs. Energy Facilities Sitting Board
Whether the board erred or abused its discretion in denying an extension request by Cape Wind Associates, LLC, of a prior approval of transmission facilities.  

Impounded case

Whether a Juvenile Court judge has discretion to relieve a juvenile from GPS monitoring as a condition of probation under G. L. c. 265, § 47, where the juvenile pleaded guilty as a youthful offender by reason of a qualifying sex offense and received a combination sentence of commitment to the Department of Youth Services until age twenty-one followed by a suspended sentence in the State prison.

Sean Gannon vs. City of Boston

In a handicap discrimination case in which an employer acknowledges reliance on an employee's physical impairments for its employment decision, for purposes of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16):  (1) what are the parties' respective burdens of proof and production with regard to the determination whether the employee is a "qualified handicapped person" who has been subjected to an adverse employment action because of his or her handicap; and (2) whether the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applies to a claim of handicap discrimination in such a case.

SJC- I2137
IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund & others vs. Joseph Tucci & others

In the context of a decision to approve a corporate plan of merger, whether a director's fiduciary duties run solely to the corporation, pursuant to G. L. c. 156D, § 8.30 (a), or otherwise, such that a shareholder's challenge to the fairness or validity of a proposed merger transaction must be brought as a derivative action; if so, whether a shareholder may assert such claims directly if derivative standing is extinguished upon completion of the merger transaction.

SJC -12134 
Commonwealth vs. Bruno Pinto

For purposes of determining whether reasonable suspicion has been established, whether the absence of evidence regarding the source of police information should be treated differently from the police's receipt of an anonymous tip.

Debra L. Marquis vs. Google, Inc.

Whether the civil remedy provisions of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, G. L. c. 272, § 99 (Q), apply to electronic mail messages sent or received by Massachusetts residents, but intercepted outside of Massachusetts; whether the judge erred in declining to certify a class on the ground that common issues did not predominate over the individual issue of whether each class member had consented to the interception of his or her electronic mail messages.

Chitwood vs. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Where G. L. c. 156D, § 16.02, entitles a shareholder of a corporation to inspect and copy corporate records if the shareholder meets certain requirements, what must the shareholder show to meet the requirement that his demand to inspect and copy records be "for a proper purpose" pursuant to § 16.02 (c) (1).

Commonwealth vs. James Garvey

Whether the habitual offender statute, G. L. c. 279, § 25, which provides, in part, that the defendant has been "previously twice convicted," requires that the prior convictions be based on "separate, prior criminal episodes" or only that the defendant has two prior convictions.  Whether there is a conflict between the plain language and the purpose of the statute.  

Commonwealth vs. Victor Rosario

Whether the defendant, who was convicted of arson in a dwelling house and murder in the second degree in 1983, is entitled to a new trial on the ground that newly discovered evidence concerning (1) scientific investigation of fires, (2) the defendant’s mental state at the time of his interrogation, and (3) police interrogation techniques casts real doubt on the voluntariness of his confession and on the justice of his conviction.

State Bd. of Retirement vs. Thomas M. Finneran & others

Whether G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), prohibits the payment of a retirement allowance to a member of the Commonwealth's retirement system who was convicted of obstruction of justice, arising out of giving false testimony in a Federal lawsuit concerning a law passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives while the member was Speaker of the House.

Impounded case
"Is it permissible under the Code of Federal Regulations for the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families to proceed to seek a termination of parental rights where the child(ren) are present in the United States pursuant to the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program and both parents are also believed to be present in the United States, i.e., not dead or missing and presumed dead."

Commonwealth vs. Joel D. Morgan

"1.  Does the VALOR Act, G. L. c. 276A, §§ 10-11, added by St. 2012, c. 108, § 16, confer a District Court judge with discretion (a) to enter a CWOF on behalf of a qualifying veteran who admits to sufficient facts on a complaint charging OUI-second, and (b) to dismiss the charge upon the veteran's completion of a court-approved treatment or other 'diversion program[],' G. L. c. 276A, § 11, notwithstanding language in chapter 90 prohibiting a CWOF for an OUI offender who has previously been assigned to an alcohol or substance abuse treatment program within ten days of the current offense?
"2.  Does chapter 276A, as amended in 2012 by the VALOR Act, confer a District Court judge with discretion to dismiss outright, over the Commonwealth's objection, a complaint charging OUI-second upon a qualifying veteran's completion of a treatment or other 'diversion program[]' approved by the judge pursuant to G. L. c. 276A, § 11."

Commonwealth vs. Kyle Tuschall

Whether a strong chemical odor emanating from the defendant's apartment, together with the police's inability to locate a tenant, justified their warrantless entry into the apartment under the emergency-aid exception.

Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. vs. Visionaid, Inc. f/k/a Boulton Co., Inc.

"(1) Whether, and under what circumstances, an insurer (through its appointed panel counsel) may owe a duty to its insured -- whether under the insurance contract or
the Massachusetts 'in for one, in for all' rule -- to prosecute the insured's
counterclaim(s) for damages, where the insurance contract provides that the insurer
has a 'duty to defend any Claim,' i.e., 'any proceeding initiated against [the

"(2) Whether, and under what circumstances, an insurer (through its appointed panel counsel) may owe a duty to its insured to fund the prosecution of the insured's
counterclaims) for damages, where the insurance contract requires the insurer to
cover 'Defense Costs,' or the 'reasonable and necessary legal fees and expenses
incurred by [the insurer], or by any attorney designated by [the insurer] to defend
[the insured], resulting from the investigation, adjustment, defense, and appeal of a

"(3) Assuming the existence of a duty to prosecute the insured's counterclaim(s), in the event it is determined that an insurer has an interest in devaluing or otherwise
impairing such counterclaim(s), does a conflict of interest arise that entitles the
insured to control and/or appoint independent counsel to control the entire
proceeding, including both the defense of any covered claims and the prosecution
of the subject counterclaim(s)?" (Certified questions)