Amicus Announcements from September 2026 to August 2027

From time to time, the Supreme Judicial Court solicits amicus ("friend of the court") briefs or memoranda from parties not directly involved in a case, but that may have an interest or opinion about a case pending before the court.

File an Amicus Brief

Amicus briefs must comply with the requirements of Rules 17, 19, and 20 of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. In order to assist the court, amicus briefs should focus on the ramifications of a decision and not solely on the interests of amici.

Interested parties may file their briefs in the Supreme Judicial Court Clerk's Office for the Commonwealth.

October 2026

SJC-14037
John B. Clayton vs. Trooper Carolyn Mansi et al. 

Whether the motion judge erred in allowing the defendant troopers’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, including whether, as the motion judge determined, the troopers were entitled to common-law immunity with respect to claims that they violated the wiretap statute, G. L. c. 272, § 99.

SJC-14028
Commonwealth vs. Maximillen Sajous 

Whether stalking in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43 (a), is a predicate offense for pretrial detention under G. L. c. 276, § 58A; whether stalking "has as an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the person of another."

SJC-14020
Commonwealth vs. David C. Reed

Whether the District Court violated defendant’s rights to due process of law under the Federal and State constitutions by holding a probation hearing, at which the court revoked the incompetent defendant’s continuance without a finding (CWOF) and probation, and sentenced him to a term of incarceration, where the Commonwealth concedes that the court erred in revoking the defendant’s CWOF and imposing a sentence given that he was incompetent, but where the Commonwealth argues that it was still permissible under the circumstances to hold the probation revocation hearing itself despite the defendant’s incompetency.

SJC-14017
Office of the Inspector General vs. Committee for Public Counsel Services

1. Whether and how appellate review properly may be sought from an order granting a motion to compel pursuant to G. L. c. 12A, § 9; and
2. Whether the motion judge erred in allowing the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) motion to compel the production by the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) of certain client docket numbers, including whether the motion judge erred in concluding that, though the docket numbers were confidential information for purposes of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.6, as amended, 490 Mass. 1302 (2022), CPCS was nevertheless required to disclose them to the OIG pursuant to the exception in rule 1.6 (b) (6) allowing for disclosure under certain circumstances “to comply with other law or a court order.”

SJC-14011
Elizabeth Childs vs. Town of Brookline et al.

Whether the motion judge erred in allowing the defendants' motion to dismiss, including:

1. whether the open meeting law applied to the proceedings at issue; 
2. whether the motion judge correctly determined that the claim under G. L. c. 30A, § 23 (f), was subject to a thirty-day statute of limitations not expressly stated in § 23 (f); and
3. whether the motion judge correctly determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims pursuant to the declaratory judgment act.

SJC-14014
Catherine Jean Englehardt et al. vs. Emma Jean Englehardt et al.

Whether the Probate and Family Court judge erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaints for de facto parentage pursuant to G. L. c. 209C, § 25, and denying their motion for relief from judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs held themselves out not as the children's parents but as their grandparents and guardians and so could not meet the requirement of § 25 (i) (iv) that they held out the children as their own.

SJC-14016
William P. O’Donnell vs. James P. Shea et al.

Whether the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff:

1. on his declaratory judgment claim that the defendants violated G. L. c. 64D, §§ 11, 12, in making certain funding decisions concerning the registry of deeds for Norfolk County (registry); and  
2. on his declaratory judgment claim that the County Commissioners for Norfolk County exceeded their authority by voting against appointing the plaintiff's candidate for Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the registry, and later voting to appoint that candidate only on a temporary basis, including the question of whether this issue is moot in light of the CIO's eventual resignation.

SJC-14008
Commonwealth vs. Monte Haynes-Carthon

Whether periods of time during which a defendant acquiesced in, is responsible for, or benefited from a delay is excludable from the time of a defendant's detention pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 58A, or whether excludable time under § 58A is limited to time periods identified in Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 (b) (2). Whether there was good cause for the defendant's continued detention beyond the statutory limit.

SJC-14024
Commonwealth vs. Nicholas Baptiste

Whether the judge erred in allowing the Commonwealth's motion to compel the defendant to provide the passcode to his cell phone, where the cell phone had been seized nearly one year before the motion was filed and where no search warrant had been sought or obtained.

September 2026

SJC-14003
Commonwealth vs. Robert W. Albert

Whether the trial judge abused her discretion by admitting one of the victim’s diary entries as first complaint evidence. 

SJC-14005
Commonwealth vs. Alexander Rentas

1. Whether the motion judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s showup identification, and if so, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the showup procedure was conducted in the presence of police and in proximity to the victim’s stolen property.
2. Whether the evidence offered at trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the individual who perpetrated the home invasion and the armed robbery.

SJC-14006
Commonwealth vs. Manuel Brunette-Silveira

Whether the evidence offered at a bench trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the offenses, where the defendant offered uncontested expert testimony that the defendant was experiencing substantial impairments in his ability to control his behavior during the relevant time period and there was limited evidence as to the defendant’s actions and demeanor during certain portions of the episode, but where the trial judge expressly rejected the defendant’s expert testimony.

SJC-14015
Nial Luu vs. Trinity Health

Whether a Massachusetts court may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-State employer with a remote employee based in Massachusetts as to claims arising out of the employment relationship, namely, the employee’s claims of violations of G. L. c. 149, § 148, and G. L. c. 151, § 1A.

SJC-14018
John Nunes vs. Safety Insurance & another

Whether the plaintiff’s claims of unfair settlement practices under G. L. c. 176D, § 3 (9), and G. L. c. 93A are timely on the ground that they accrued on or after the date that the Appeals Court reversed a defense verdict in the underlying tort case; whether liability was not reasonably clear before the date of the appellate decision.

SJC-14012
Massachusetts Gaming Commission vs. Landmark American Insurance Co.

Where an insurer provides a defense to an insured pursuant to a reservation of rights; where the claims against the insured that are covered by the relevant insurance policy are dismissed; and where the only remaining claim against the insured is not covered by the policy, whether the insurer has a continuing duty to defend after the covered claims are dismissed but still subject to appeal.