A federal judge in Boston has refused, for the second time in three days, to order The Belmont Voice to give Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai the coverage he demanded. In a 14-page memorandum and order entered October 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs denied his renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding he was not likely to succeed on any of his seven claims. Along the way she quoted his own emails to the paper, including one that ended, “Fuck you and the Belmont Voice,” and found the paper’s description of them as “aggressive” to be “entirely accurate.”
The case is Ayyadurai v. Belmont News Foundation, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14760 (D. Mass.). We read the order in full. Here is what it says. The ruling denies emergency relief; it does not end the case.
How the case got here
- The email. In August, Belmont Voice editor in chief Jesse A. Floyd wrote to Ayyadurai, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, that “When we get to the general election, our coverage will expand to include other candidates,” the order recounts. Ayyadurai says his campaign pulled its volunteers out of Belmont in reliance on that.
- The escalation. After the paper joined other local outlets in interviewing Republican nominee John Deaton, Ayyadurai sent emails accusing the paper of “blatant malevolence,” racial animus and violating tax law. A September 28 email called the defendants “racist scumbags” and said “You have broken the Law and you must be punished,” the order says.
- The offer he turned down. On October 14, Floyd emailed that the paper was “working on a piece about independent candidates on the Nov. 3 ballot” and sent four questions. Ayyadurai declined to answer them, the order says. He then demanded an “unedited feature profile,” a front-page notice, an email blast to the paper’s subscribers, and his profile pinned atop the website through Election Day.
- Round one. He sued October 21. At an October 26 conference, Burroughs denied his first motion and dismissed the original complaint, which pled only state-law claims, for lack of jurisdiction. He filed an amended complaint the same day adding federal civil rights claims, and a renewed motion asking the court to order the paper to “immediately publish” his answers to Floyd’s questions. Our earlier coverage of the suit.
What Burroughs ruled, claim by claim
- No contract. “No reasonable person would construe this general and broadly worded statement, contained in a casual email responding to a question about the newspaper’s coverage, as a contractual offering with ‘definite and certain’ terms,” Burroughs wrote. That sank his breach of contract, implied covenant and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims.
- No evidence of racial bias. Ayyadurai pointed to the paper interviewing a white candidate, calling him “Mr.” rather than “Dr.,” and describing his conduct as “aggressive.” Burroughs wrote that none of it “plausibly suggest[s] that Defendants would have provided Mr. Ayyadurai the coverage he seeks if he were a different race.” Having read his emails, she found the “aggressive” label “entirely accurate, such that the Court cannot infer racial animus from it.”
- No conspiracy. His § 1985 claim alleged a “coordinated blackout” tied to the joint Deaton interview. He “offers no evidence to support his claim that such a conspiracy ever existed,” the order says.
- Not a state actor. His § 1983 claim failed because the defendants are “a private non-profit news corporation and two of its employees.” His “public entwinement” theory was “supported by nothing more than labels and jargon,” Burroughs wrote.
- Promissory estoppel. Even if the paper’s words were a promise, “the record indicates that Defendants were fully prepared to offer such coverage, and that it was Ayyadurai who rejected their offer because it did not conform with his desired timeline and scope.”
- Chapter 93A. Burroughs relied on the SJC’s holding that “the publication and sale of newspapers is a private enterprise” and that a newspaper’s “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,” PMP Associates, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 366 Mass. 593 (1975).
The First Amendment
Burroughs also found the federal civil rights claims and the 93A claim “likely barred by the First Amendment.” She quoted Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974), in which the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law requiring newspapers to print candidates’ replies: “The choice of material to go into a newspaper … and treatment of public issues and public officials, whether fair or unfair, constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.”
Ayyadurai had argued that Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), lets courts enforce promises newspapers make. Burroughs agreed that principle exists but said it “has no bearing” on claims that “attempt to impose content-based obligations on Defendants independent of any alleged promises made by them.” We noted earlier that his reply brief’s paraphrase of Cowles did not match the opinion’s wording.
What happens next
The order denies preliminary relief. The amended complaint is still pending. Ayyadurai can appeal the denial of a preliminary injunction to the First Circuit. The election is November 3.
Frequently asked questions
Did the judge dismiss Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit against The Belmont Voice?
She dismissed his original state-law complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 26, 2026. His amended complaint, with federal claims, is still pending. On October 28 she denied his renewed request for an emergency order forcing the paper to publish his answers.
Can a court force a newspaper to cover a candidate?
Generally no. In Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974), the Supreme Court held that a newspaper’s choice of what to print is protected editorial judgment. A narrow exception exists for enforcing a specific promise a paper made, under Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991); Judge Burroughs found no such promise here.
Is a newspaper’s refusal to cover someone a 93A violation?
Not by itself. The SJC held in PMP Associates v. Globe Newspaper (1975) that a newspaper’s refusal to deal, without a monopolistic purpose or concerted effort to hinder free trade, is not an unfair trade practice under G.L. c. 93A.
Sources: Memorandum and Order, Ayyadurai v. Belmont News Foundation, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14760-ADB (D. Mass. Oct. 28, 2026), ECF No. 29, read in full, and the court docket. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), and PMP Associates, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 366 Mass. 593 (1975), quotations checked on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.