SJC Reaffirms Limits on Charitable-Trust Lawsuits in Important Decision for Higher Education
On August 19, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision for the City of Boston—and for colleges, universities, and other charitable institutions—in Emerald Necklace Conservancy, Inc. v. City of Boston. Firm attorneys Alexandra Arnold and David A. Bunis filed an amicus brief on behalf of nineteen Massachusetts colleges and universities, supporting the defendants on the issue of standing, and the Court’s standing analysis is consistent with the position advanced by the amici.
The case arose from the City’s plan to redevelop White Stadium in Franklin Park through a partnership that would permit a professional women’s soccer team to use the renovated stadium. The plaintiffs sought to block the project, arguing that it violated the terms of the George Robert White Fund—the charitable trust that owns the stadium parcel—and required legislative approval under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The SJC rejected those challenges, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the trust and that Article 97 did not apply to the stadium parcel. We congratulate Rose Law Partners LLP, Goulston & Storrs, and Verrill on this significant victory for their clients.
Although the dispute centered on White Stadium, the plaintiffs’ theory of standing had implications for charitable institutions across the Commonwealth. They argued that private parties should be permitted to enforce a public charitable trust based on their organizational mission, civic involvement, and use of the trust property, particularly when the Attorney General has declined to bring an enforcement action.
The SJC rejected that proposed expansion of standing, reaffirming that a public charitable trust generally may be enforced only by the Attorney General, a trustee, or someone with an individualized interest distinct from that of the general public. The Court held that an organization’s mission—even one “harmonious with the purpose” of the trust—does not by itself confer standing, nor does use of trust property as a member of the public. It also declined to relax those requirements when the Attorney General elects not to sue, warning that doing so would expose charitable trusts to a “barrage of claims.”
Cloherty & Steinberg LLP was pleased to contribute the perspective of Massachusetts colleges and universities to the Court’s consideration of this important issue. The decision is particularly significant for colleges and universities, which administer substantial charitable gifts, often over generations, and regularly navigate competing views about how those resources should be used. By preserving clear limits on who may sue, the ruling protects institutions of higher education from litigation by self-selected stakeholders who lack an individualized legal interest and helps ensure that charitable resources remain available for scholarships, teaching, research, student support, and other educational purposes.
