At the March 14th, 2025 hearing, the judge praised the quality of the legal documents we plaintiffs had filed thus far:

"there are, in my view, profound constitutional interests at stake on both sides of this issue…. these issues have been presented thoroughly, thoughtfully, and professionally… it’s particularly impressive from people who don’t have former legal training."

The judge also praised how we conducted ourselves:

"Even more important than the quality of the argument and the pleadings, is the quality of the interaction between counsel and self-represented counsel on the other side. It’s a good model, I think for everyone. I wish more people could see this hearing to see that people can disagree strenuously about things, without treating each other poorly."

I appreciated the judge's thoughtful feedback and was gratified to hear that the quality of our legal arguments was noticeable.

One of the things we challenge in this lawsuit is the Massachusetts Port Authority's regulation that bans Americans from carrying loaded firearms anywhere on airport property. Specifically, we challenge the ban outside of secured, enclosed areas of the airport. We do not challenge the ban of loaded firearms past security checkpoints or in secured areas.

Months after we filed and served the lawsuit, a private Boston law firm contacted us. It claimed to represent Massport and asked for us to allow Massport to add itself as a defendant. We said no, as the MA Attorney General's office was already defending Massport's regulation.

Massport's private law firm then filed a motion in court, which we opposed. The court held a hearing on that motion on March 14th, 2025. To our disappointment, the court allowed Massport to both add itself as a defendant and to be represented by the private law firm. Now we have to contend with documents and legal arguments from both the MA Attorney General's office and the private law firm going forward. 

Most of us plaintiffs were able to make it to the court hearing. And we are grateful to the several people who appeared to show support in the courtroom. Here's our group photo.

On March 6th, 2025, the court held the first hearing in this case. The hearing mainly addressed the Defendants' motion to extend the deadline for them to serve a response to our lawsuit for another 60-days. Though we were disappointed that the judge decided to grant that second lengthy extension, the hearing went well overall. The judge had read our 1st amended lawsuit complaint, which he described as "voluminous, in a good way." He also made positive comments about the quality of our complaint and the seriousness of the constitutional rights violations involved.

Though this delay is frustrating, it is only a delay. The judge scheduled additional hearings in the near future. 

A private Boston law firm contacted us at the end of January, 2025, said they represent the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), and asked if we would agree to let them add Massport as a defendant. That would add complication and cost to our lawsuit that is already challenging, so we told them no. The law firm then served a motion—that did not comply with MA Superior Court Rules or MA Rules of Civil Procedure—on us plaintiffs, requesting that the court add Massport as a defendant. We promptly served that law firm with our Opposition to their motion. The law firm claims to have sent the motion and opposition to the court, but it's not on the case's docket yet. You can read our Opposition here.

Immediately upon us serving the defendants with the lawsuit complaint and summons, their lawyers in the MA Attorney General's office asked us to agree to granting them a 60-day extension on top of the standard 20 days that the MA Rules of Civil Procedure give them to serve a written response to our lawsuit. And they wanted an even bigger extension to the 10 days the rules give them to respond to our motion for a preliminary injunction. We said no, but offered to agree to a more moderate and reasonable extension. They rejected that offer and filed an "emergency motion" asking a judge to grant them the huge extension they wanted. We swung immediately into action and prepared and filed an opposition to that motion, which you can view and read here. As you can see in our opposition, we pointed out that the defendants—via their attorneys—made multiple false assertions and other rather ridiculous arguments. But, without explanation, several days later a judge granted them the huge extension they sought. They now have until February 10th, 2025 to serve written responses to our lawsuit complaint and our motion for preliminary injunction. Though this is a disappointing delay, it is only a delay. We will persevere and see justice served.

On November 22, 2024 we had a special process server serve the lawsuit complaint and our motion for a preliminary injunction on the Defendants at the MA Attorney General's office in Boston. 

Today we paid the additional filing fees the court charged us so that the lawsuit may proceed. (Here's the court's receipt.) Any donations to help us cover these costs would be much appreciated!

The court accepted and filed the lawsuit while charging just over $300 total in filing fees. But on November 12th the court informed us that it failed to charge the required filing fee for each plaintiff. Thus, we have had to revise our current goal for donations upward to cover our costs.

On November 11, 2024 the MA Superior Court of Middlesex County accepted and filed our lawsuit complaint. The court assigned it case number 2481CV02958 and titled the case Mukhtar, Amgad O. et al vs. Healey, Maura et al. You may view a copy of the full lawsuit complaint with its exhibits that was stamped and filed by the court here.

Today, November 8th, 2024, I have filed our lawsuit complaint online in Middlesex County Superior Court, MA. I expect to have further updates next week.