Shiva Ayyadurai, the independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, has sued his hometown newspaper, The Belmont Voice, in federal court for not covering his campaign the way it covered Sen. Ed Markey and Republican nominee John Deaton. He is asking a judge to order the nonprofit paper to publish an unedited feature about him, put his campaign material at the top of its homepage, and email his platform to its subscribers before the November 3 election. The case, Ayyadurai v. Belmont News Foundation, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14760, was filed October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court in Boston and is assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs, according to the docket.
The paper calls the suit “a baseless, frivolous lawsuit that we expect will be resolved quickly.” A hearing is set for Monday, October 26. Here is what each side says, and why a court ordering a newspaper to publish something runs into the First Amendment.
What the lawsuit claims
Ayyadurai is representing himself. According to the docket and the defendants’ filing, he brings four claims against the Belmont News Foundation, which publishes the Voice, editor-in-chief Jesse Floyd and board chair Sarah Caputo:
- breach of contract,
- promissory estoppel,
- violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I, and
- unfair and deceptive practices under G.L. c. 93A.
He also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Boston.com reported that he seeks damages as well. The Globe reported that his complaint accuses the paper of “a consistent pattern of discriminatory disrespect, racial gatekeeping, and bad-faith minimization” toward him. Among his examples, according to Boston.com, the paper addressed him as “Mr. Ayyadurai” rather than “doctor,” and one interview question described his race as a “state senate” campaign. He holds a Ph.D. from MIT.
“This is not journalism or editorial judgment. It’s just intentional viewpoint discrimination and election tampering,” Ayyadurai told the Globe. On social media, he said that as a tax-exempt nonprofit the paper is “barred by federal law from intervening in elections,” Boston.com reported. These are allegations. The court has not ruled on them.
The emails behind it
The defendants’ opposition, filed October 23, lays out the exchange, quoting the emails attached to Ayyadurai’s complaint:
- August 26. After Ayyadurai left a voicemail complaining that the Voice had interviewed Markey but not him, Floyd emailed: “Tuesday is a primary election, and our coverage was focused on candidates facing primary challenges. When we get to the general election, our coverage will expand to include other candidates.” Ayyadurai replied, “Sounds good.” The defense says this is “the entirety of the exchange” on which his contract and promissory estoppel claims rest. The Globe reported that Ayyadurai treated it as “an explicit written commitment.”
- September 25. The Voice published an article on Deaton. That night Ayyadurai emailed asking when to schedule his interview, then sent a second email less than two hours later demanding a date within five business days.
- September 26. Caputo responded that the editorial team “is planning further coverage of this race and does plan to include your campaign in that coverage.” Ayyadurai called that “constructive candidate exclusion,” the Globe reported.
- September 28. According to the defense filing, Ayyadurai sent an email with the subject line “Racist ‘Belmont Voice’ Must Be Punished for Violating Multiple Federal Laws.”
- October 14. Floyd emailed four questions for a piece on independent candidates on the November 3 ballot. Ayyadurai called the request “bad-faith pre-litigation pretext,” according to the filing.
- October 19. Ayyadurai sent a “pre-litigation notice” demanding an “expansive, unedited feature profile,” a front-page notice, a dedicated email to subscribers and a pinned homepage profile through Election Day. He said he had filed a complaint with the IRS.
The Voice said in a statement that it had planned to include Ayyadurai in a story about independent candidates, and that he sued when it “did not yield to his demands for more extensive coverage.” It noted that he polled at 1 percent in an October Suffolk University and Boston Globe poll.
Can a court order a newspaper to cover a candidate?
The defense’s main argument is Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). In that case a Florida candidate used a state “right of reply” law to demand that the Miami Herald print his response to its editorials. The U.S. Supreme Court struck the law down. It held that “the choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials, whether fair or unfair, constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment,” and said it had yet to be shown how government could regulate that process consistent with the First Amendment.
Tornillo involved a statute. An order from a court would also be government action. The defendants argue Ayyadurai is asking for more than the Florida candidate did: not a reply, but a feature, homepage placement and an email blast.
“Just as the First Amendment protects our right to critique local news coverage, it also protects an editor’s right to report on public issues in a way they alone see fit,” Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, told the Globe.
The Massachusetts claims
- Civil Rights Act. Under G.L. c. 12, § 11I, a person may sue when the exercise of constitutional or statutory rights has been interfered with “as described in section 11H.” Section 11H covers interference “by threats, intimidation or coercion,” whether or not the person acted under color of law. The defense argues nothing the paper did was a threat, intimidation or coercion, and that Ayyadurai has no right to be covered by any publication. It cites Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 855 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1988), in which the court said it had “no reason to think that the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the MCRA in an attempt to have its courts, at the insistence of private plaintiffs, oversee the editorial judgments of newspapers.”
- Chapter 93A. Section 2 of the consumer protection law bars “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” In PMP Associates, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 366 Mass. 593 (1975), the SJC held that the Boston Globe’s refusal to run a company’s ads did not violate 93A. It said “a refusal to deal, without a showing of monopolistic purpose or concerted effort to hinder free trade, is not an unfair trade practice under G. L. c. 93A.” The defense also argues Ayyadurai did not send the written demand that § 9(3) requires “at least thirty days prior to the filing” of a 93A suit; his first mention of 93A came two days before he sued.
- Contract and promissory estoppel. The defense argues an editor’s email about planned coverage is not a contract or a binding promise, and that the paper kept its word anyway by sending interview questions.
The nonprofit question
Ayyadurai’s argument that the Voice favored his opponents rests on the federal rule that a 501(c)(3) organization must not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office,” under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). The defense turns that around: it argues that ordering the paper to promote one candidate is what would raise that problem, and that general election coverage that does not endorse anyone is consistent with its tax-exempt status. Ayyadurai says he has filed a complaint with the IRS.
A familiar litigant
Ayyadurai has sued news outlets before, including Gizmodo and Techdirt over articles questioning his claim to have invented email, according to the defense filing and Boston.com. He has also repeatedly sued Secretary of State William Galvin, Boston.com reported. Boston.com reported that Galvin last month referred signature fraud allegations involving Ayyadurai’s campaign to state prosecutors. Ayyadurai has not been charged.
What comes next
Judge Burroughs set a remote status conference for 9 a.m. on Monday, October 26, according to the docket. She ordered Ayyadurai to notify the defendants of the case, his motion and the hearing by October 22. The defendants, represented by Rachel Strom of Davis Wright Tremaine, have filed their opposition and a declaration from Floyd. Their answer to the complaint is due November 12.
Frequently asked questions
Why is Shiva Ayyadurai suing The Belmont Voice?
He says the nonprofit Belmont paper promised to cover his U.S. Senate campaign, covered Ed Markey and John Deaton but not him, and treated him with racial bias. He brings contract, promissory estoppel, Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and Chapter 93A claims and wants a court to order coverage before November 3, 2026. The paper calls the suit frivolous.
Can a court force a newspaper to publish a story?
Generally no. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring newspapers to print candidates’ replies, holding that what goes into a newspaper is the exercise of editorial control and judgment protected by the First Amendment.
Does Chapter 93A apply to a newspaper’s coverage decisions?
In PMP Associates v. Globe Newspaper Co. (1975), the SJC held that a newspaper’s refusal to deal, without a monopolistic purpose or concerted effort to hinder free trade, is not an unfair practice under Chapter 93A. That case involved advertising.
When is the hearing in Ayyadurai v. Belmont News Foundation?
A remote status conference is set for 9 a.m. on Monday, October 26, 2026, before Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court in Boston.
Sources: Federal docket for No. 1:26-cv-14760 (D. Mass.) via CourtListener, including the defendants’ memorandum in opposition filed October 23, 2026; The Belmont Voice board statement, October 22, 2026; Boston Globe, October 22, 2026; Boston.com and Hoodline, October 23, 2026. Tornillo, PMP Associates and Redgrave read on CourtListener. G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I and c. 93A, §§ 2 and 9 read at malegislature.gov. Ayyadurai’s claims are allegations. General information, not legal advice.