Every public university that experiments on animals has a committee that approves the experiments. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants to know who sits on the one at UMass Chan Medical School in Worcester. UMass Chan says releasing the names would invade the members’ privacy and could jeopardize safety. PETA sued on October 6, 2026 in Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported, and it is also in a records fight with UMass Amherst, according to Boston.com.
The case turns on the Massachusetts Public Records Law, which starts from a presumption most people do not know about: if you ask a public agency for a record, the law presumes it is public, and the agency has to prove otherwise. Here is what PETA is asking for, the exemptions UMass is relying on, and how a public records lawsuit works. These are PETA’s allegations, and both schools declined to comment on the pending litigation.
What PETA is asking for
- UMass Chan. In January 2026, PETA requested the names of the members of UMass Chan’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, along with the committee’s notices, agendas and meeting minutes, according to both outlets. After PETA narrowed the request to January 2025 through January 2026, the school produced agendas and minutes but not the members’ names, the lawsuit says, as reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. PETA alleges the school at first said it would release the names and then reversed itself days later, Boston.com reported.
- The exemptions UMass Chan cited. According to the lawsuit, the school said releasing the names would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy and could jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity if information about the spaces used for animal research became public.
- UMass Amherst. PETA requested several years of the Amherst committee’s notices, agendas and minutes in October 2025. Amherst produced them in March but redacted members’ names and other information, citing exemptions for “deliberative” material and “trade secrets,” according to PETA as reported by Boston.com. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported that an earlier PETA records dispute with UMass Amherst ended in a 2025 settlement that included a $50,000 payment for PETA’s legal fees.
- What PETA wants. An order requiring UMass Chan to turn over everything requested, its legal fees, and punitive damages.
“Committee members are public employees at public universities, and the law is clear that the people paying the bills have a right to know who’s making decisions about animals’ lives behind laboratory doors,” PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo said. UMass Chan said it is “committed to upholding the highest standards of laboratory animal welfare in its research programs.” A UMass Amherst spokesperson said the university complies with “all applicable federal and state laws and guidelines.”
What these committees are
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, or IACUCs, are required by federal law at research facilities that use covered animals. Under the federal Animal Welfare regulations, 9 C.F.R. § 2.31:
- The committee is appointed by the facility’s chief executive officer and has a chair and at least two other members.
- At least one member must be a veterinarian with training or experience in laboratory animal science.
- At least one member “shall not be affiliated in any way with the facility other than as a member of the Committee,” and cannot be an immediate family member of someone who is. The regulation says that person is meant to “provide representation for general community interests in the proper care and treatment of animals.”
- The committee must review the facility’s animal care program and inspect its animal facilities at least once every six months.
That unaffiliated-member rule is part of PETA’s argument. Without names, PETA says, the public cannot check members’ qualifications or confirm the school is meeting the requirement, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
The rule: presumed public
The Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, § 10A, gives a requester two routes when an agency refuses: an appeal to the Supervisor of Records in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office, or a lawsuit. A suit against a state agency, which includes the University of Massachusetts, must be filed in Suffolk Superior Court. That is where PETA filed.
In that lawsuit, the statute stacks the deck toward disclosure:
- The judge decides the question “de novo,” meaning without deferring to the agency’s view, and may review the records privately.
- “[A] presumption shall exist that each record sought is public and the burden shall be on the defendant agency or municipality to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such record or portion of the record may be withheld.”
The exemptions UMass is relying on
The exceptions are listed in the definition of “public records” in G.L. c. 4, § 7, clause Twenty-sixth. The ones reported in this dispute:
- Privacy, clause (c). Covers “personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The key word is “unwarranted,” and whether disclosure would be unwarranted is what the court would decide. PETA’s position is that a public employee’s service on a committee that approves publicly funded research is not private.
- Security, clause (n). Covers records relating to “security measures,” “threat or vulnerability assessments” or “the security or safety of persons or buildings,” and cybersecurity, where disclosure “in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian” is “likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security.” The question for the court is whether a list of names fits a clause aimed at records about buildings, systems and infrastructure.
- Deliberative material, clause (d). Covers “inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency,” but not “reasonably completed factual studies or reports.” Cited by UMass Amherst, according to PETA.
- Trade secrets, clause (g). Covers “trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy and upon a promise of confidentiality.” It does not apply to information submitted “as required by law.” Also cited by Amherst, according to PETA.
PETA’s lawsuit also points to an earlier court ruling that required the University of Washington to give PETA the unredacted names of its IACUC members, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported. That ruling came under Washington law and does not bind a Massachusetts court.
Legal fees, and punitive damages that go to the state
- Fees. If a requester wins a court order or a consent decree, or the agency turns over the records after the suit is filed, the court may award attorney fees and costs, and there is a presumption in favor of an award unless the agency shows one of the listed exceptions. § 10A(d)(2). That is how the earlier UMass Amherst dispute could end with a fee payment.
- Punitive damages. PETA asks for them, but under § 10A(d)(4) they are available only if the agency “did not act in good faith,” are capped between $1,000 and $5,000, and are paid into the state’s Public Records Assistance Fund, not to the requester.
How to use the law yourself
- Send a written request to the agency’s records access officer. Be specific about the records and the time period.
- If the agency withholds or redacts records, ask it to identify the specific exemption it is relying on.
- You can appeal to the Supervisor of Records, who must issue a written determination within 10 business days of receiving the petition, or go directly to court.
Frequently asked questions
Why is PETA suing UMass Chan?
PETA alleges UMass Chan Medical School illegally withheld the names of the members of its Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee in response to a public records request. It filed suit October 6, 2026 in Suffolk Superior Court. UMass Chan declined to comment on the litigation.
Are UMass records public?
The University of Massachusetts is a public agency covered by the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Its records are presumed public unless a specific statutory exemption applies, and in court the university bears the burden of proving the exemption.
What is an IACUC?
An Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee is a federally required committee that oversees animal research at a facility. Under 9 C.F.R. 2.31 it must include a veterinarian and at least one member not affiliated with the institution.
Can you get punitive damages in a Massachusetts public records lawsuit?
Only if the agency did not act in good faith. The amount is $1,000 to $5,000 and goes to the state’s Public Records Assistance Fund, not to the person who sued.
Where do you sue a state agency for public records in Massachusetts?
Suffolk Superior Court. Suits against cities and towns are filed in the superior court for the county where the municipality is located.
Sources: Boston.com (Abby Patkin) and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (reporting by the Worcester Telegram & Gazette), October 8, 2026, describing PETA’s lawsuits and statements by PETA, UMass Amherst and UMass Chan. We did not read the complaints. G.L. c. 66, section 10A and G.L. c. 4, section 7, clause Twenty-sixth read at malegislature.gov. 9 C.F.R. 2.31 read at ecfr.gov. PETA’s claims are allegations that have not been decided by a court. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.