MA Senate Passes Shield Law 37-3

Yesterday, the MA Senate voted 37 to 3 to strengthen the state’s shield law that protects the right to abortion care and gender-affirming care.

This bill would expand the state’s telehealth shield law by prohibiting all state actors from cooperating with any out-of-state hostile litigation, establishing state-level EMTALA protections for emergency abortion care, allowing providers critical anonymity by using their practice name on prescription labels for reproductive and gender-affirming health care medicines, and ensuring all clinicians and lawyers are protected from professional discipline related to hostile litigation, and more.

The 3 NO votes were from Republicans Kelly Dooner (R-Taunton), Peter Durant (R-Durant), and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

Press Release on Joint Rules Agreement

Earlier this year, both Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka promised reforms to make a more transparent, efficient, and accountable legislative process. We are delighted that, for the first time in six years, the House and Senate have agreed to Joint Rules, and that these new rules contain concrete, pro-democracy improvements. 

We have been clear for years that better process helps produce better policy, and that the top-down, closed-door way that Beacon Hill operates disempowers the public (at the expense of monied interests) and makes it harder for rank-and-file legislators to do their job. 

These new rules will make it easier for everyday people to engage in the legislative process by increasing the notice for hearings to ten days, providing bill summaries, and establishing hearing schedules earlier in the session. These new rules will provide greater accountability by making committee votes public and by making testimony publicly available. They will empower rank-and-file legislators to engage more in the policymaking process by making their votes more meaningful and their attendance at hearings more expected. They will push against the bottlenecks that occur late in the session by pushing up reporting deadlines. 

We look forward to holding Beacon Hill accountable to their new rules. Rules only improve the process if they are, in fact, followed. 

These new rules should be the beginning, not the end, of democratic reforms. That we have them at all is a credit to years of advocacy and popular education, the landslide win of Question 1 on the ballot last year, and the willingness of candidates to make Beacon Hill’s inertia and lack of transparency a key issue. There is more to do, such as structural reforms like fixing a stipend system that centralizes power or the deeper work of changing the culture of Beacon Hill in a way that encourages legislators to be more willing to speak out, stand out, and not settle for inertia and small wins. But today, we celebrate. 

New Tools in the Toolbox Required for the Housing Crisis

Wednesday, June 24, 2025

Chair Cyr, Chair Haggerty, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.971: An Act reforming the housing development incentive program and H.1478: An Act advancing the Massachusetts social housing program. Both of these bills would help spur the development of the mixed-income housing that our Commonwealth desperately needs.

Last session, your chambers voted to increase funding for the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP), which provides subsidies for new development in gateway cities. Although our gateway cities can benefit from housing production, this program too often ends ups subsidizing units with shockingly high rents in hot markets in little need of the “carrot” of tax incentives.

Zoning reforms are necessary to encourage transit-oriented development in all communities and to encourage the construction of more multifamily housing and fewer McMansion single-family homes. However, housing advocates are routinely told that there is not enough money for subsidies for low-income housing, affordable housing, and public housing while the state provides greater subsidies to high-end units.

This weekend, the Boston Globe reported on the freeze on housing vouchers in the Commonwealth due to increasing rents and funding uncertainties. Why are subsidies for high-end housing flowing when vouchers are being frozen?

The HDIP program would benefit from reforms to ensure that it does produce affordable units. S.971 would do just that, turning HDIP into a program to support mixed-income development and recognizing that we need more housing at all income levels.

Social housing has been a proven model for building mixed-income housing, combining the benefits of traditional public housing with the cash flow of market-rate development. This recognizes the public interest in building housing for a wide range of incomes, and buildings can often be designed to be 1/3 low-income, 1/3 middle-income, and 1/3 higher-income.

When thinking of the type of housing H.1478 would create, I think of my neighbors in Tent City, a mixed-income building in the South End that was the result of years of activism by Mel King and housing justice activists. It remains a thriving community, and our Commonwealth would benefit from more like it.

Dedicated funding for social housing would help our Commonwealth reach our overall housing production goals as well meet the increase in affordable housing needed to meet demand. The issue has been gaining momentum in recent years, and your chambers included some money for a pilot program in the Affordable Homes Act. But we must do more. Our housing crisis demands an “every tool in the toolbox” approach, and this is an essential tool.

We also urge you to reject legislation that would weaken new tools embraced by the Commonwealth. To give one example, the Accessory Dwelling Unit language in the Affordable Homes Act was an important win, and S.1002 (An Act relative to accessory dwelling units on smaller lots) would undermine that. We urge you to give it an adverse report.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Let Beacon Hill Know: MA Doesn’t Need New Prisons

Although the Legislative session here in Massachusetts has been off to a slow start, I was delighted that one of the earliest hearings was for the Prison Moratorium bill.

This bill would put a five-year pause on new prison and jail construction, a recognition that we should be investing in jobs and education and not in incarceration.

The first step is getting the bill out of committee, and the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight needs to hear from people like your state senator and your state representative. The House is operating on a 60-day timeline for reporting bills out of committee, and that deadline is fast approaching.

Can you write to your state legislators in support of passing the Prison Moratorium?

The Legislature voted for the Prison Moratorium back in 2022, but Republican Governor Charlie Baker vetoed it. It advanced out of committee last session but never made it to the floor for a vote. Let’s get this unfinished business done early.

Testimony on Expanding the Public Records Law

Wednesday, June 24, 2025

Chair Collins, Chair Cabral, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.2210: An Act extending the public records law to the Governor and the Legislature (Sen. Rausch).

In the 2016 public record reform law, the Legislature created a commission to explore

whether to expand the public records law to the Legislature and the Governor’s office, but that commission ended up yielding no formal report. Massachusetts remains the only state in the US where both the executive and legislative branch of state government claim full exemption from public records law. The same governing bodies that require cities and towns to adhere to strict Open Meeting Law rules exempt themselves from even a basic level of transparency.

As other state governments understand, making executive records like calendars, emails and texts, visitor logs, and call logs accessible is key to accountability: when such documents are fully kept secret, the public is left in the dark about whom the Governor is meeting and why, and what they are prioritizing.

The difficulty in obtaining information from the Massachusetts Legislature not only makes our state an outlier but also stifles the democratic process. The most moneyed interests are those who benefit from closed, hierarchical systems because they will always be able to work their way behind closed doors—whereas the public and researchers are rarely so lucky.

Openness helps foster social trust: open government should be viewed as part and parcel of the work of civics education that your chambers have championed.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Beacon Hill’s New Rules Are Late But Contain Wins for Democracy

At the start of the new legislative session, both Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano pledged a commitment to increase the transparency, accountability, and efficiency of the legislative process.

Later that month, we helped organize 30 advocacy organizations on a joint letter outlining out a suite of reforms to boost public trust in the legislative process and to make a better process for rank-and-file legislators.

With a week left until we hit the second half of 2025, we finally have agreed-upon Joint Rules from the MA House and MA Senate, the set of practices and procedures governing how joint House-Senate committees operate. (They still need a vote, but that is assured.) Rules determine timelines, deadlines, access to information, and more.

Although the fact that this did not occur until late June is damning, the fact that it happened at all is exciting, as the Legislature has been punting on the issue of Joint Rules since 2019 due to previously irreconcilable differences. It is also exciting to see real wins for the community of activists and advocates fighting for greater transparency and democracy in the State House.

It’s been clear from the start that the House and Senate would agree to a new rule in which House committee members report out House bills and Senate members report out Senate bills. And that was in these new Rules.

But what else is new in the new Rules? (See a more detailed mark-up here.)

NEW WIN: 10-Day Hearing Notice

How much notice should be provided for joint committee hearings has been a sticking point between the House and Senate since 2019. The Senate has advocated for 5 days, but the House has wanted to stick to 72 hours. Those were their positions in their Joint Rules proposals earlier this year.

However, in our letter in January, we argued for two weeks: two weeks is the standard for people seeking vacation time off work, and if we want everyday people to be able to testify, we should provide two weeks of advance notice. By embracing a 10-day standard, the Joint Rules were more pro-participation than either chamber’s original proposal.

NEW WIN: Hearing Schedules

In our joint letter, we urged joint committees to establish clear hearing schedules for the session early on (we said April 1st). The new Joint Rules say that joint committees must provide a schedule of hearing dates within three weeks of committee appointments. Again, this is more pro-participation than either chamber’s original proposal. Both this and the ten-day notice rule recognize that what is good for the public is good for rank-and-file legislators. If we want meaningful hearings, then people need to be able to show up to testify, and legislators need to show up to listen to them. That can only happen with sufficient notice.

NEW WIN: Public Hearing on Rules

At the end of the two-year session, the Joint Committee on Rules will conduct a comprehensive review of the joint rules, including a public hearing where everyday people can testify. Legislators have often said that regular people don’t care about the rules when they have argued against transparency measures; this shows that they have finally acknowledged people do.

Committee Votes

All joint committee votes will be recorded and posted on the Legislature’s website within 48 hours. This has been a sticking point for six years between the House and Senate and the subject of significant advocacy (and public shock at our outlier status).

Unfortunately, the language about committee votes does not include House language that would have required co-chairs provide committee members with a redlined version of any bill they are expected to vote on, and it does not include Senate language specifying that study orders (a polite way of killing a bill) require votes.

The new rules also specify that if no action is taken on a bill, it will be given a study order. This could become a way to avoid taking votes on bills and will have to be guarded against.

Publicly Available Testimony

Joint committees will be required to make written testimony publicly available, with limitations for testimony that includes sensitive personal information, obscene content, or information that may jeopardize the health, wellness, or safety of the testifier or others. This is a win for access to information vis-a-vis existing rules, but not as far as the Senate’s proposal and what we called for. The Joint Rules will allow committee chairs to set the rules regarding how testimony is made publicly available, but the best standard would be to simply post all of it (with the above redactions as needed), as done in several other states. We’ll have to see how this all works in practice.

Bill Summaries

Joint committees will be required to make a summary of each bill publicly available on the General Court website prior to its hearing. Summaries will be written by committee staff, as per the House proposal, instead of the bill filers themselves (as per the Senate’s).

Earlier Reporting Deadline

Joint committees will now have until the first Wednesday in December of the first year of the session (as opposed to the first February in the second year) to take action on all bills in their purview, an attempt at avoiding the legislative backlog that always results and at setting up the second year for a clear focus on legislating. The House will still abide by the rolling deadlines in its own rules, which require bills to be reported out 60 days after they are heard (with the possibility of an additional 30-day extension).

Conference Committees

As per the Senate’s original proposal, the first meeting of a conference committee (the three senators and three representatives negotiating versions of a bill) will be open to the public and media. We should hope that these are more meaningful meetings than the one held by the Joint Committee on Rules, which was more of a mumbling and disjointed press conference than a real meeting.

Also, as per the Senate’s original proposal, a minimum of 24 hours of will be required between a conference committee report filing and a legislative vote, allowing more time for review by legislators and the public. If a conference committee report is filed after 8:00pm, it cannot be voted on until the second calendar day following the day on which it was filed. More time for review is good for the public and good for rank-and-file legislators.

In a limited version of a House proposal, conference reports would be accompanied by summaries, but only “whenever practicable.”

Tracking Attendance

The House proposal had argued for tracking attendance at joint committee hearings, and the Senate proposal excluded any such measure.

The Joint Rules landed on a place that recognizes the importance of showing up while accommodating excused absences. The new attendance record-keeping would begin on October 1 (it is unclear why so late) and would count attendance both in-person and remote, both full and partial (regarding the length of the hearing).

Chairs would record all members as “Present”, “Not Present”, or “Hearing conflicts with a legislative session, hearing, conference committee or commission meeting under joint rule 29A,” posted along with the archived hearing livestream video. A member who is not present due to military service, a medical emergency, or other specified reason as agreed to by the rules of the joint committee, shall have such reason noted on the recorded attendance.

Formal Sessions Past July 31st

The the new Joint Rules would permit the Legislature to meet in formal session after July 31 in the second year of the legislative session in the following cases: reports of conference committees formed on or before July 31, appropriation bills filed after July 31, and gubernatorial vetoes or amendments. We argued against pushing more of the work of the session after July 31st, as legislators are not in the State House as regularly and thus decision-making would be more centralized and less accountable. Last session’s practice of conference committees going on through the fall and unfinished business as of July 31 wasn’t one worth encouraging.

Testimony: MA Needs Medicare for All

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Chair Friedman, Chair Lawn, and Members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

I am writing today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1405/S.860: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Far Past Time to Ban Racist Mascots

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Chair Lewis, Chair Gordon, and members of the Joint Education Committee:

I am writing today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.575/S.312 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth).

The use of such mascots has serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes.

Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It’s time we listen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Massachusetts SHOWED UP to Rallies This Weekend. What Can You Do Next?

It was inspiring to see all the photos of Massachusetts out in force this weekend: whether at Boston’s Pride for the People or the “No Kings” rallies from communities small and large, across every corner of the Commonwealth. I love seeing the creativity in people’s signs and the collective power on display of people showing up.

And we will need those numbers, that energy, and that creativity if we want to pass important policies to fight back. Good policy is possible, but it doesn’t happen unless your state representative and state senator hear from you—and often.

With Massachusetts being targeted by ICE raids that terrorize communities and make us all less safe, we need our State Legislature to take action in support of disentangling state and local law enforcement from ICE.

With a federal government attempting to criminalize dissent, we need to shore up privacy rights and combat new aggressive and invasive forms of surveillance.

That’s why we need Beacon Hill to pass the Safe Communities Act, the Dignity Not Deportations Act, and the Location Shield Act.

Can you write to your state rep and state senator in support of these key bills?

EMAIL YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS

The Safe Communities Act (H.2580 / S.1681) would end the voluntary involvement of our public safety officials in civil immigration matters.

The Dignity Not Deportations Act (H.1588 / S.1122) would prohibit sheriffs from voluntarily renting beds to ICE and ban agreements to deputize state and local law enforcement to ICE.

The Location Shield Act (H.86 / S.197) would prohibit companies from selling, leasing, trading, or renting location data. Your privacy should not be for sale, and your location is your business.

Can you write to your state rep and state senator in support of these key bills?

In solidarity,

Letter to AG Campbell to Protect Immigrant Taxpayers

Progressive Mass was proud to sign on to the letter below, organized by Greater Boston Legal Services.

June 5, 2025

Honorable Andrea Joy Campbell

Massachusetts Attorney General

One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA  02118

Re: A petition to challenge the impending use of confidential IRS data for immigration enforcement

Dear Attorney General Campbell,

On behalf of the many immigrant families living in Massachusetts, the undersigned urge you and other Attorneys General to consider bringing a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The goal of the suit is to prevent the agency from implementing a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which would allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the first time to use confidential taxpayer information as immigrant locator tools.

Unlike individual plaintiffs who would put themselves at risk of deportation, Attorneys General have standing to bring their own challenges based on the lost revenue resulting from vulnerable immigrants dropping out of the tax system.

Background

DHS wants access to immigrant tax data in order to expedite the mass deportation mandate under Executive Order 14161 from the President. The broad scope of the data sought is apparent from the first paragraph of the MOU which references the EO:

WHEREAS by Executive Order (EO) No. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 Fed. Reg. 8451 (Jan. 20, 2025), the President directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to take immediate steps to identify, exclude, or remove aliens illegally present in the United States;

The administration believes that DHS access to the personal data of immigrant taxpayers is permissible under an exception to the tax-privacy statute that allows for the investigation and trial-preparation of federal criminal statutes. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2). There is no exception for civil immigration enforcement. There do not appear to be safeguards to ensure that the information shared would only be used for actual criminal investigations. While most information-sharing requires judicial oversight, the (i)(2) exception allows access to a subset of IRS data without going to a court. It is feared that the information extracted from IRS records will inevitably be utilized for civil immigration enforcement, a clear violation of taxpayer privacy rules. These strict privacy protections were enacted in response to Nixonian abuses and the present contemplated mass transfer of taxpayer information is utterly unprecedented. High level IRS officials including an acting Commissioner have resigned over concerns that the MOU violates taxpayer privacy rules.

A lawsuit by the Attorney(s) General would challenge the administration’s efforts to break down one of the strongest firewalls for government data: the privacy afforded to tax information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (tax-privacy statute). Starting with people who have final orders of removal and subject to criminal investigations, the administration seeks to build information pipelines from tax-related agencies—such as IRS and SSA—to ICE. A pending lawsuit[1] in the D.C. Circuit has an uncertain future and we are looking to your office to take up the baton before it is too late.

The administration has stated its intent to seek information for as many as seven million people using this pipeline, alongside its articulated desire to create a “mega API” for IRS data. While DHS argues that it primarily targets those with final deportation orders (which have rarely resulted in criminal prosecutions) it is unlikely that ICE will truly undertake the time and expense to pursue criminal proceedings for so many people. Furthermore, those of us who have represented immigrant taxpayers before the IRS do not believe the agency has the competency to verify another agency’s criminal investigations particularly given the high volume of investigations that DHS would have to undertake.

The reported agreement has caused panic and confusion in the immigrant community among the many taxpayers who have relied on the IRS to keep their tax data private. The IRS encourages all taxpayers to comply with their tax filing obligations regardless of their immigration status, issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to those ineligible for social security numbers to facilitate compliance and has assured taxpayers –up to now- that their information is protected. ITINs were never intended to be tools for immigration enforcement. Indeed, immigrant ITIN filers pay more than their share of income taxes in Massachusetts and undocumented workers contribute payroll taxes even though they may never be able to access the Social Security or Medicare benefits they pay for with each paycheck.

Immigrant families have been traumatized. They are afraid to attend immigration hearings, go to work, send their kids to school, or even attend community gatherings such as church services. Now will they be putting themselves and/or family members at risk by filing their tax returns? A recent study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that undocumented immigrants in Massachusetts contribute $650 million in state and local taxes. Immigrant workers are critical to our state economy and this breach in taxpayer privacy threatens to disrupt our taxpaying workforce. If the agreement is executed, immigrants will go further underground and we will see “downstream consequences” to our state revenues. Our tax system is built on voluntary compliance. ITEP has raised the alarm that tax revenues will decrease if the IRS is weaponized against immigrants and their tax information is used against them. We all lose when taxpayer privacy is weakened and inevitably results in the erosion of trust in the tax system.

We know you are already doing a great deal to alert and educate the residents of Massachusetts including immigrants, but a legal suit on behalf of vulnerable immigrant taxpayers seems necessary to prevent this imminent abuse of the law.

We look forward to discussing any questions you may have. Thank you for reading this and for all that the AG’s Office is doing during these very uncertain times. 

Sincerely,

Agencia ALPHA

Asian American Civic Association

Asian Taskforce Against Domestic Violence (ATASK)

The Boston Foundation

Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network (BIJAN)

Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston (BMA TenPoint)

Boston Tax Help Coalition, Office of Workforce Development, City of Boston

Brazilian Workers Center

Brazilian Women’s Group

Brockton Workers Alliance

Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC)

Center for New Americans

Centro Presente

Children’s Health Watch  

Chinese Progressive Association

Coalition for Social Justice Action

Community Action Agency of Somerville (CAAS)

Community Economic Development Center- New Bedford (CEDC)

Community Labor United

Dominican Development Center

English for New Bostonians

Greater Boston Labor Council 

Greater Boston Legal Services

Haitian Community Partners Foundation

Health Law Advocates

Healthy Families Tax Credit Coalition

Horizons for Homeless Children

Immigrant Family Services Institute (IFSI) 

Immigrant Service Providers Group/Health, Somerville

International Institute of New England

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA)

Jewish Vocational Services (JVS)

Justice at Work

Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts

Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)

La Colaborativa

Lawrence Community Works

Legal Key Partnership for Health and Justice

Lynn Rapid Response Network

Lynn Worker’s Center

Massachusetts Advocates for Children

Massachusetts AFL-CIO

Massachusetts Association for Community Action (MASSCAP)

Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations

Massachusetts Coalition of Domestic Workers

Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MassBudget)

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA)

Massachusetts Immigrant Collaborative (MIC)

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI)  

Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (MassCOSH)

MetroWest Worker Center/Centro del Trabajador  

Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts

Northeast Justice Center 

Northshore Community Development Coalition

Office of State Representative Russell Holmes

Office of State Senator Liz Miranda

Open Door Immigration Services

Pathway for Immigrant Workers

Progressive Massachusetts

Project Citizenship

RESULTS-Massachusetts

Rosie’s Place

Safety Net Project, Wilmer Hale Legal Services Center, Harvard Law School

SEIU Local 509

Strategies for Children

The House of the Seven Gables Settlement Association

The Neighbourhood Developers (TND)

Unitarian Universalist Massachusetts Action Network (UUMassAction)

United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 2322

The Welcome Project 

Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice and the Environment

Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts

Women’s Institute for Leadership Development (WILD)

[1] Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, et al. v. Bessent, et al., 1:25-cv-00677 (D.D.C.)This case was filed by Public Citizen before the Treasury-DHS Memorandum of Understanding, based on reporting of imminent disclosure of the information of tax filers using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). As part of the litigation, the MOU, partially redacted, was made public confirming that a much wider target group of taxpayers is at risk. On May 12 the Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction.