Gov. Maura Healey and Republican Mike Minogue met for the second and last time Thursday night, October 15, 2026, in a one-hour debate hosted by WCVB with WBUR and the Boston Globe. They argued over energy bills, the gas tax, housing, immigration enforcement, abortion, license plate cameras and the conduct of people around the governor. Then Minogue brought up the Springfield courthouse.
Healey defended the project. According to WCVB, she said the existing courthouse had serious problems, that the project went through a procurement process, and that a judge found the process “flawless.” That last point is a statement about a court ruling, so it can be checked. Here is what the judge in the case actually decided, why it matters what kind of ruling it was, and where the lawsuit stands.
The project and the lawsuit
- On July 2, 2026, the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) announced Liberty Junction as the developer for a new Springfield Regional Justice Center at 125 Liberty Street, to replace the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse, The Reminder and Western Mass Politics & Insight reported. The deal is a lease of roughly $2 billion over 40 years.
- Liberty Junction’s team included John Barros, who became interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority in January, and Conan Harris, the husband of U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, WBUR reported. Barros later divested from the project.
- On July 9, two losing bidders, Jeb Balise of USPB JV, LLC and Dinesh Patel of Springfield Tower Square, LLC, sued DCAMM and Liberty Junction in Hampden Superior Court. They alleged conflicts of interest tied to Barros and challenged whether the winning team met the bid’s site-control requirement, according to WBUR.
- Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office defended the procurement, calling the complaint “nothing more than a fever dream of imagined malfeasance,” WBUR reported.
What Judge Hodge decided on August 24
Balise and Patel asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the state from moving forward while the case was pending. On August 24, Superior Court Judge David Hodge denied both in a 29-page ruling, WBUR and Western Mass News reported. According to WBUR’s account of the decision:
- He found the plaintiffs had no likelihood of success on the merits, which he called the “touchstone of the preliminary injunction inquiry.”
- He wrote that there was “no legal or logical support” for the theory that DCAMM violated the state conflict-of-interest law, noting that the statute applies to state employees and DCAMM “is not a state employee.” He also found no evidence that Barros contacted DCAMM or the selection committee about the proposal.
- “The conditional selection of Liberty Junction was based on the assessment of objective factors, primarily the price tag,” he wrote. Liberty Junction’s proposal was about $420 million cheaper than the Balise proposal.
- On the plaintiffs’ certiorari claim, he did not decide whether that form of review applies to a procurement like this one. He assumed it did and found the claim failed anyway.
- He found the losing bidders would not be irreparably harmed, because “they could recover a monetary judgment for the amount of their lost profits” if they won at trial, and that further delay would harm the public because the existing courthouse “urgently needs replacement.”
That is a strong ruling for the state. It is also a ruling of a particular kind.
What a preliminary injunction ruling is, and is not
A preliminary injunction is an early, temporary order that freezes things while a case is decided. The Supreme Judicial Court set out the Massachusetts test in Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609 (1980). “By definition,” the court wrote, “a preliminary injunction must be granted or denied after an abbreviated presentation of the facts and the law.” The judge “initially evaluates in combination the moving party’s claim of injury and chance of success on the merits,” then weighs the risk of irreparable harm to each side. The court added that the judge’s assessment at this stage “may not correspond to the final judgment.”
So when Hodge found the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed, he was predicting, on an early record, how the case would probably come out. He did not hold a trial, and his ruling did not end the case. Both sides’ own descriptions bear that out:
- Balise and Patel said the ruling “did not dismiss their lawsuit or resolve its ultimate merits,” WBUR and Western Mass News reported.
- Western Mass Politics & Insight wrote that Hodge “telegraphed his skepticism” but that his opinion “went no further than saying the plaintiffs had not shown much likelihood of success.”
Whether “flawless” is a fair summary of that ruling is a judgment call voters can make for themselves. What can be said is that the word does not appear in any of the reporting we found on the decision. And the decision was about whether to pause the deal, not a final finding that the process had no flaws.
Healey has described the case this way before. In September, she told editors and reporters at The Republican: “It’s been reviewed by a judge in Superior Court. The case was thrown out. There’s no ‘there’ there.” MassLive, reporting that interview, noted that the lawsuit “is still alive.”
Where the case stands now
- An appeal of the injunction ruling. Balise and Patel filed a notice of appeal from the August 24 order, BusinessWest reported. Massachusetts law, G.L. c. 231, § 118, allows an immediate appeal from an order refusing a preliminary injunction, as the SJC explained in Packaging Industries. WWLP reported in September that the appeal remained pending.
- A motion to dismiss. The Attorney General’s office, representing DCAMM, moved to dismiss the case, relying heavily on Hodge’s opinion, Western Mass Politics & Insight and BusinessWest reported.
- An amended complaint. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding the Asset Management Board, Administration and Finance Secretary Matthew Gorzkowicz and DCAMM Commissioner Adam Baacke as defendants, WWLP and Western Mass Politics & Insight reported. It alleges, among other things, that the Asset Management Board did not make required written findings and that DCAMM recast its decision as cost-based. Those are the plaintiffs’ allegations; none has been decided.
- No final ruling. We found no report of a ruling on the motion to dismiss or of a decision on the appeal. The state is still negotiating lease terms with Liberty Junction, the Boston Globe reported October 13.
Minogue has called for a federal probe of the project and has pledged to re-bid it if elected, MassLive reported.
The rest of the debate, and the law behind it
According to WCVB’s account of the debate:
- The gas tax. Healey said she did not believe a suspension of the gas tax should be permanent and blamed high prices on the war with Iran. Minogue said he wants to cut the gas tax and one-third of utility fees. The state tax is set by statute at “24 cents per gallon,” G.L. c. 64A, § 1, which we read at malegislature.gov. Neither candidate can suspend it alone; it takes a law passed by the Legislature. Lawmakers had not approved Healey’s proposed two-month suspension as of the latest reporting we found, from the New Boston Post.
- Misconduct around the governor. Minogue criticized Healey’s response to the arrest of former aide LaMar Cook and to the $495,000 settlement with a former MBTA employee who says General Manager Phillip Eng pulled her hair. Healey repeatedly said she fired Cook before he was arraigned. A judge revoked Cook’s bail on the state charges Thursday; our explainer on the federal SNAP charges and bail revocation under G.L. c. 276, § 58B. Cook is presumed innocent.
- Abortion and mifepristone. Minogue did not directly say whether he supports repealing the state’s abortion law, saying he would follow the law and uphold his oath. Healey pointed to the state’s shield law. They disagreed over mifepristone, which Minogue said is FDA-approved and was “never going to be taken off the shelves”; Healey said she stockpiled it. Three states are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Massachusetts shield law.
- Flock cameras. Asked about cities and towns canceling Flock license plate reader contracts, Minogue said the technology requires guidelines. Healey said Flock is not used at the state level and that she is working on a framework to prevent abuses. Massachusetts has no statute specifically regulating license plate readers; the main legal limit is the SJC’s 2020 decision in Commonwealth v. McCarthy. We explained it in our Quincy Flock piece.
- Immigration enforcement. Healey pointed to the PROTECT Act and said she has stood up to ICE. Minogue said ICE should coordinate with state and local authorities to target violent criminals and drug dealers.
- Energy and housing. Minogue blamed Healey for blocking a natural gas pipeline as attorney general; Healey said she opposed it because ratepayers would have paid for it. On housing, Healey cited a permitting plan she said cut approvals from a year to 30 days, and Minogue called for universal stretch codes and faster state approvals.
- The scholarship tax credit. Minogue again said he would opt Massachusetts into the federal scholarship tax credit, the main policy fight of the first debate. Our explainer on 26 U.S.C. § 25F and why only the governor can opt in.
The Boston Globe wrote that the candidates “presented starkly different depictions of Massachusetts,” and that the debate was “heavy on state policy” and less dominated by President Trump than the first. PolitiFact fact-checked the debate live with WCVB; its checks were not available to us at publication time.
What happens next
- Saturday, October 17: early in-person voting begins.
- Tuesday, November 3: Election Day.
- The courthouse case continues in Hampden Superior Court, with the appeal of the injunction ruling pending.
For more on the challenger, see Who is Mike Minogue?
Frequently asked questions
Did a judge rule the Springfield courthouse procurement was flawless?
Judge David Hodge denied the losing bidders’ request for a preliminary injunction on August 24, 2026, finding they had no likelihood of success and no “legal or logical support” for their conflict-of-interest theory. That was a ruling on whether to pause the deal, made on an early record. It did not dismiss the lawsuit, and the word “flawless” does not appear in any of the reporting we found on the decision.
Is the Springfield courthouse lawsuit over?
No. The plaintiffs appealed the injunction ruling and filed an amended complaint adding new defendants. The state has moved to dismiss. We found no report of a ruling on the motion to dismiss or on the appeal.
What is the test for a preliminary injunction in Massachusetts?
Under Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609 (1980), the judge weighs the moving party’s likelihood of success together with its risk of irreparable harm, then balances that against the risk of irreparable harm to the other side. In the courthouse case, Judge Hodge also weighed the public interest.
Can the governor suspend the Massachusetts gas tax?
No. The 24-cent-per-gallon rate is set in G.L. c. 64A, section 1, and changing or suspending it requires legislation.
When is the Massachusetts governor election?
November 3, 2026. Early in-person voting begins October 17.
Sources: WCVB, debate coverage, October 15, 2026; Boston Globe, October 13 and 15, 2026; WBUR, August 10 and 26, 2026; Western Mass News, August 24, 2026; The Reminder; BusinessWest, September 2026; WWLP, September 2026; Western Mass Politics & Insight, September 2026; MassLive, September 2026; New Boston Post. Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609 (1980), read on CourtListener. G.L. c. 64A, section 1, read at malegislature.gov. We did not review Judge Hodge’s decision itself; quotations from it are as reported by WBUR. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice. This site takes no position in the election.