Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decisions
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is one of the oldest state supreme courts in the U.S. It was known as the Superior Court of Judicature when it was founded in 1692. Three of its chief justices have served on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has the authority to review appeals of criminal and civil cases, and it holds the unusual power to provide advisory opinions. The executive branch or the legislative branch may request these opinions. The site of the Court is the John Adams Courthouse in Boston.
There are no specific requirements for becoming a justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. A justice simply must be under 70 years old and maintain good behavior while serving on the Court. The Governor of Massachusetts appoints each of the seven justices on the Court, although they also must be approved by the executive council. In contrast to the supreme courts in many other states, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court does not impose term limits on its justices. Once they are appointed, they may serve until they turn 70, at which age they are required to retire. The same rules apply to the appointment and tenure of the Chief Justice as to the six Associate Justices.
However, a judge may face removal from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for reasons related to misconduct or a disability. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct will investigate any complaint of misconduct by a justice, and it will hold a formal hearing and provide a recommendation on whether the justice should be removed or face other discipline. A justice who engages in misconduct also may face removal by impeachment in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and conviction in the Massachusetts Senate. In other situations, the Governor may remove a justice with the approval of the Governor’s Council and with the joint address of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- 2025 (74)
- 2024 (136)
- 2023 (129)
- 2022 (148)
- 2021 (156)
- 2020 (194)
- 2019 (196)
- 2018 (210)
- 2017 (204)
- 2016 (187)
- 2015 (208)
- 2014 (204)
- 2013 (203)
- 2012 (201)
- 2011 (127)
- 2010 (81)
- 2006 (1)
- 2004 (2)
- 2003 (1)
- 2002 (1)
- 2001 (1)
- 1997 (2)
- 1996 (2)
- 1994 (165)
- 1993 (196)
- 1992 (201)
- 1991 (202)
- 1990 (208)
- 1989 (197)
- 1988 (202)
- 1987 (216)
- 1986 (202)
- 1985 (222)
- 1984 (227)
- 1983 (221)
- 1982 (214)
- 1981 (186)
- 1980 (190)
- 1979 (178)
- 1978 (208)
- 1977 (202)
- 1976 (223)
- 1975 (200)
- 1974 (153)
- 1973 (126)
- 1972 (184)
- 1971 (177)
- 1970 (187)
- 1969 (174)
- 1968 (183)
- 1967 (184)
- 1966 (158)
- 1965 (179)
- 1964 (148)
- 1963 (158)
- 1962 (192)
- 1961 (204)
- 1960 (179)
- 1959 (203)
- 1958 (184)
- 1957 (174)
- 1956 (199)
- 1955 (183)
- 1954 (148)
- 1953 (141)
- 1952 (188)
- 1951 (198)
- 1950 (200)
- 1942 (1)
- 1933 (1)
- 1891 (1)
- 1886 (1)
Recent Decisions From the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date: June 10, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13656
Justia Opinion Summary: The case involves the execution of an anticipatory search warrant that led to the seizure of cocaine and U.S. currency from Victor Manuel Mercedes' apartment. The warrant was contingent on a future triggering event,…
Date: June 10, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13699
Justia Opinion Summary: In 2023, Boima Collins was convicted by a jury of carrying a firearm without a license and other charges. The Commonwealth introduced evidence of Collins' 1998 felony conviction to prove he did not have a license to…
Date: June 4, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13600
Justia Opinion Summary: The case involves the admissibility of location data obtained from a GPS device imposed on the defendant as a condition of pretrial release. The defendant was involved in a domestic violence incident on December 26,…
Date: June 4, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13636
Justia Opinion Summary: The defendant was convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon after stabbing his father at a family barbecue. The incident occurred when the victim became upset and yelled at the defendant's wife,…
Date: May 29, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13576
Justia Opinion Summary: In 2023, Kenneth Bresler, a former Appeals Court staff attorney, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court against three Appeals Court employees, Lynn Muster, Mary Bowe, and Gina DeRossi, alleging intentional interference…
Date: May 28, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13687
Justia Opinion Summary: The case involves a dispute between two parents, Bharathan Jeevanandam and Vanikala Bharathan, regarding child support payments. The parents divorced in 2012, and the father was ordered to pay child support to the…
Date: May 23, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13659
Justia Opinion Summary: The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), third offense, resisting arrest, and three civil motor vehicle violations. After being stopped by police, the defendant…
Date: May 22, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13655
Justia Opinion Summary: Sergeant John Babcock, a member of the Newton police department, was transferred from his position as a traffic sergeant with regular daytime hours to a night shift sergeant position. This transfer occurred after Babcock…
Date: May 20, 2025
Docket Numbers: SJC-13528, SJC-13529 & 13530
Justia Opinion Summary: In a joint trial, Markeese Mitchell, Pedro Ortiz, and Terrance Pabon were convicted of second-degree murder. Years later, they moved to interview a juror, alleging bias and concealment of material information during jury…
Date: May 19, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13668
Justia Opinion Summary: Two children in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) appealed the dismissal of guardianship petitions filed by their great-aunt and great-uncle, who reside in Pennsylvania. The Juvenile Court…
Date: May 15, 2025
Docket Number: SJC-13672
Justia Opinion Summary: A child was temporarily removed from her parents' care shortly after birth and placed in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) due to concerns about domestic violence. DCF sought to vaccinate her…
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
