Mass. Appeals Court Vacates Harassment Order, Citing Due Process Violations

The Mass. Appeals Court vacated a harassment order against a self-represented zoo protester on due process grounds.

On August 20, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated a harassment prevention order issued against a self-represented protester at a zoo, ruling that the defendant's due process rights were compromised. The court's opinion highlighted significant procedural failures in the issuance of the order.

Specifically, the court found that while four alleged incidents had been presented as grounds for the harassment order, only one incident could possibly qualify as harassment. The other three incidents were categorized as protected speech, not rising to the level of fighting words or true threats. This distinction underscores the careful balance courts must maintain between enforcing harassment laws and respecting constitutional rights to free expression.

Additionally, the lower court judge improperly accepted an affidavit from a veterinarian without giving the self-represented protester an opportunity to challenge the evidence or conduct cross-examination. The Appeals Court emphasized that denying a proper hearing and due process was a violation of the protester’s rights, stating, "The defendant's due process rights were violated when her motion to vacate the order was denied without a proper hearing."

This ruling is significant for civil liberties advocates and sets a precedent ensuring that harassment prevention orders under Massachusetts Chapter 258E must not infringe on legitimate petitioning activities or protected speech. It also highlights the importance of procedural fairness for litigants without legal representation.

For more about Massachusetts harassment prevention orders, see the official government resource and guidelines on legitimate petitioning activity under Chapter 258E here.