A Massachusetts judge is now weighing what comes next for the legal challenges filed against a Springfield courthouse proposal.
Last month, the state announced the winning bid for replacing the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse. But, two developers who were passed over say the winning proposal was “plagued by conflicts of interest” and other issues.
Tuesday’s hearing – in the very building the state and developers have been hoping to replace — ultimately took just over one hour.
Superior Court Judge David Hodge had few questions for attorneys representing the plaintiffs — USPB JV and Springfield Tower Square, LLC — and defendants — Liberty Junction, as well as the state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM).
Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs, Attorney John Butts reiterated the core arguments made in initial filings last month — that the selection of the Liberty Junction group to build a $600 million courthouse off of Liberty Street, near Union Station, was improper, due in-part to conflicts of interest related to CoJo Partners.
The firm — one of several making up Liberty Junction — had been headed by Conan Harris, the husband of U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, and John Barros, the interim head of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. Barros had been part of the outfit before his January 2026 appointment to the MCCA.
"DCAMM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in conditionally selecting a proposal whose headliners were two political insiders - a sitting high-level state official in Mr. John Barros and the husband of a member of Congress in Mr. [Conan] Harris," Butts said. "Now, at the very least, that selection raises an appearance of impropriety and the media coverage shows that right off the bat…”
An anchor in the city's downtown, the current courthouse — home to the Hampden County Superior Court, Springfield District Court and numerous other offices — has been considered a “sick” building, due in part to mold and other problems that have led to legal action in the past.
Multiple cases of illnesses and even deaths have reportedly been tied to the building’s conditions. The state is looking to replace it but, citing costs and construction timelines, the officials previously opted against tearing down and rebuilding a courthouse on the same State Street parcel.
Instead, in early 2025, DCAMM announced it would seek out a private developer to partner with the agency and the Massachusetts Trial Court system to build a courthouse to suit on private land.
The courts would then act as a tenant for at least 40 years – a move DCAMM indicated could save the state money and get a courthouse built faster, possibly by 2030.
At least ten bidders would put proposals forward in 2025 and, following evaluations, the Massachusetts Trial Court and DCAMM opted for Liberty Junction to build the “Springfield Regional Justice Center,” replacing one of the busiest courthouses in Massachusetts outside of Boston.
The 270,000-usable-square-foot parcel would mean ample parking and accessibility compared to the current site, plus, the state argues, the bid was at least $300 million cheaper than the runner-up, and $420 million cheaper compared to the Dwight Street proposal USPB JV had put forward.
But, within days of the Liberty Junction announcement in early July, both USPB JV — led by Jeb Balise of the Balise Automotive Group — and Dinesh Patel of Springfield Tower Square challenged the decision.
When, how and if Barros properly notified the state of his business dealings were a focus of the July 9 challenge. Even with Barros divesting from the project weeks ago — combined with request for proposal (RFP) compliance accusations and other factors, the plaintiffs are ultimately seeking a do-over.
"We didn't file this suit, saying ‘you have to award the contract to us.’ We are certainly not here to try and stop a new courthouse from being built — far from it," Butts said. "What we are here as plaintiffs asking for is, frankly, what every citizen and taxpayer should want: a fair and transparent process, and that hasn't happened.”
"This RFP should be put out for rebid. I'm not asking for that today. The request today is an order to DCAMM of stop digging and stop making the hole bigger. Don't enter into a binding lease that's going to be an issue for the next 40 to 60 years.”
The defense, meanwhile, stuck to its guns as seen in opposition filings from both the Liberty Junction legal team and DCAMM’s legal representation, the state Attorney General’s Office.
Attorney Nicholas Ogden argued the challenge was rife with issues and various misapplications of law and statutes.
He also attempted to poke holes in the conflict-of-interest allegations, describing how Barros had been in contact with both DCAMM’s and the state ethics commission’s legal counsel about his dealings with Liberty Junction months ago – and that he was instructed to file disclosures in the event his group was picked, as he did a day after Liberty Junction was selected.
Ogden and Attorney Marwan Zubi, representing Liberty Junction, repeatedly said the winning bid was significantly cheaper than USPB JV’s– and that ultimately, the legal challenge is delaying any move to get court employees out of a sick building.
"If this court grants an injunction, everybody's going to be working in this court that much longer. It's going to take that much longer for a new courthouse to be built and employees are going to continue to be subject to unhealthy conditions," Zubi said. "Conversely, the plaintiffs will suffer no demonstrable harm if their motion for injunction is denied and … again, with regard to the public interest, there's no question that the public interest will be aversely affected if an injunction is imposed. Again, the health and wellbeing of court employees, if not their lives, are at stake.”
Almost simultaneously on Tuesday morning — across the state, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell reiterated on WGBH’s Boston Public Radio, that her office believes DCAMM handled the procurement process properly.
"… but I'm looking at the law and the way in which DCAMM handled the procurement, and, by the law, they handled it according to how they were supposed to handle it, legally," Campbell said, "and I think some have suggested that, because we are representing DCAMM, I am somehow in favor of the bid by Conan and by John Barros. That is total nonsense. I'm not in favor of anyone's proposal.”
"I'm in favor of representing DCAMM and DCAMM, in this process, went with the lowest bidder - that was $300 million cheaper, which is how the procurement process works, and now they are standing by that,” she continued.
Both sets of plaintiffs are also seeking input from the state Inspector General’s Office over the $2 billion contract that Liberty Junction stands to gain.
For now, as Hodge deliberates, the two developers put out a statement that reads:
“Our commitment to the courthouse employees, to Springfield, and to Hampden County taxpayers is absolute. That’s why we believe a project of this importance needs a process that is fair, transparent, and follows the rules.”
Following Tuesday’s hearing, two Liberty Junction principals — Richard Mann and Claiborne Williams, co-founders of the firm FD Stonewater — vowed to continue their legal defense.
Both also indicated that while CoJo Partners is attached to the winning bid, FD Stonewater owns "100%" of “FDS MA LIBERTY JUNCTION, LLC.”
"In our experience, we have government real estate expertise and with courthouses and DCAMM in Massachusetts - Jeb Balise builds car dealerships. Our site was the best location. Even DCAMM proposed a report three years ago that chose that as the best location," Williams said. "Our design team designed the most efficient design. Jeb Balise was deemed inefficient. Our rental pricing was the least expensive for the taxpayer. We are proud of our proposal and the state for choosing us, and we intend to fight Jeb Balise, and we intend to build this courthouse."
--
Some audio for this story was provided by WGBH
