The city of Northampton, Massachusetts recently faced a challenge to a resolution passed by its city council. Reporter Colin Weinstein wrote about this for the independent news outlet, The Shoestring.
Weinstein spoke with Hudson/Catskill Bureau Chief Sam Dingman about the resolution and its aftermath.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Editor's note: this conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Weinstein: It would 'urge' — that's the language of the resolution-the city treasurer and the mayor to divest city funds from entities complicit in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine, according to the American Friends Service Committee list. That's a nonprofit which compiles this stuff.
Dingman: It's a Quaker organization, correct?
Weinstein: Exactly. And that actually passed about a year ago in September 2025, and the city had about $71,000 invested through post-employment benefits funds and a trust fund of some sort.
Dingman: The organization that you were referencing, the American Friends Service Committee, how do they classify companies that are complicit in violations of of international law and human rights?
Weinstein: My understanding is that they look through various companies that are operating in Israel and check on whether, for example, they're operating in settlements or whether something having to do with their business practices has violated international law in some way, which companies pretty often do.
Dingman: So, what was the reaction at the time to the resolution?
Weinstein: So, in terms of organized response to it, there really wasn't much beyond the lawsuit that we'll talk about. I was at the city council meeting where it passed, and there were certainly, I don't know there were three or four people, who spoke against the resolution very passionately. Some of them Israeli, some of them with family members who died in the Oct. 7 attacks, or friends. But the vast, vast majority of people were people in support of the resolution. I mean, the small city council chamber was overflowing into the halls.
Dingman: Do we know in the intervening years since the resolution was passed, has the city taken the steps that the resolution quote urges them to take?
Weinstein: They have not actually begun the implementation yet, so they haven't indicated that they don't want to implement it, and I mean technically, and we'll get into this more later, the resolution isn't binding.
Dingman: One of the other interruptions to them acting on it would be this lawsuit that you referenced. Tell us what this lawsuit was and who filed it.
Weinstein: Basically, in the spring, 10 taxpayers in Northampton filed this lawsuit with legal representation from these two groups: one called the National Jewish Advocacy Center and one called the Gevura Fund. And I'll focus more on the National Jewish Advocacy Center because they're the much larger organization. And so they file this, and they say that they're basically directing city investment based on aims that are moral, as opposed to solely fiduciary. And then later, I think in late June, a number of Northampton residents file this motion to intervene. They are worried that the city will defend itself rather than the resolution
Dingman: That intervention was against the, to be clear, the lawsuit or the resolution?
Weinstein: The intervention was against the lawsuit in a way. They're sort of intervening as their own party. They're trying to intervene as their own party in the lawsuit. You know, pursue their own aims, make their own arguments, etc. But they're really in line with the city. But ultimately, this hearing happens in late August, where the city's argument is this is non-binding and it's protected First Amendment speech, it's government speech, and at the same time, the city is saying also, as per the city charter, a resolution of the city council can't be binding. So this this is moot, basically.
Dingman: And if I may, Colin, the city, it sounds like in this hearing that was at, I believe, Hampshire County Superior Court, they are making this fairly procedural defense of the resolution. But as you reported, outside of Hampshire County Superior Court, there was a very significant rally happening that was comprised of city residents who, it seemed like, were sort of urging the city to not ignore the what they saw as moral underpinnings of the resolution.
Weinstein: Exactly. So yeah, I mean, before the the hearing is this 75-plus person rally, tons of people wearing keffiyehs, holding Palestinian flags, slogans in support of the resolution, in support of Palestine, etc. And they have a couple people who are actually interveners speak at the rally. Both of whom have spent significant time in Israel. One of whom is a three-term city council person and dual citizen of Israel, I mean, basically, the idea of the intervention is they want to "defend the resolution," and they want it to be binding.
Dingman: So, if I'm following all this correctly, Colin, we have this really interesting convergence of parties here at this hearing. We have, of course, the city that wants to defend its resolution, as in line with the course of of normal city business, we have the plaintiffs who are saying that this is not something that we think the city is legally allowed to do, and then we have the advocates outside who are wanting to make sure that the moral piece of this conversation doesn't get lost in the sauce, so-to-speak?
Weinstein: Yeah, it's an interesting conjuncture, particularly because it shows the ways in which the intervention is both a legal maneuver, but also an organizing effort, and it also stokes more organizing outside the courtroom while bringing what's happening in the courtroom to the public more so.
Dingman: So, what did the judge find?
Weinstein: The judge dismissed the lawsuit. He basically said the plaintiffs lacked standing because he didn't believe it was actually like going to incur expenditure for the city of Northampton. All it's doing is shifting some investments around. It's not incurring any new expenditure, and he references case law to support that.
Dingman: So you also reported, Colin, that the outcome here is likely to have implications elsewhere in the region, including in Easthampton, which is not far from Northampton. Why is that? What's the story in Easthampton?
Weinstein: They've begun their own campaign for divestment resolution, which is essentially identical, they reached out to their city treasurer to ask about investments that would be connected to companies that are on the American Friends Service Committee list, and found out that it's nearly half a million dollars. It's $454,000, so, significantly more than Northampton and in a smaller city budget, which is notable. So they go ahead. They do very similar organizing, signature collecting, etc. They get a couple sponsors for the resolution. The resolution goes before the city council on Sept. 3, and it gets sent to the finance committee. And it's not entirely clear, but it's possible that part of that was due to concerns expressed by some city council people and some members of the public who were attending the meeting about the lawsuit that was being brought against Northampton, which had not yet been dismissed. It's less likely to chill the Easthampton City Council now that it's been dismissed, and then also, it has broader implications throughout the state, throughout the country, even for other municipalities that want to pass similar resolutions, including Medford, Massachusetts, which has a case against them right now from the same law firm, the National Jewish Advocacy Center, in federal court.
