Audi alteram partem roughly translates from Latin as “listen to the other side.” But NBC’s affiliate station in Springfield, Massachusetts, WWLP, did not give its viewers the opportunity to do so when it reported on a lawsuit against a controversial divestment bill set to be debated in Hampshire Superior Court next week. During the coverage, WWLP’s anchor stated that
The hearing will consider [Northampton’s] motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging [a] resolution [which] … calls for the city to divest from entities it says are complicit in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine.
And that’s all she wrote. WWLP did not take the time to educate their viewers about the lawsuit against the resolution, leaving viewers with a one-sided perspective on the issue while omitting key legal statutes that may make the resolution obsolete. So, let’s dive into some background:
In September 2025, the Northampton City Council unanimously passed a divestment resolution explicitly calling for the city to divest public funds “from entities complicit in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine.” The resolution, R-25.314, cites Amnesty International studies alleging that Israel has “imposed a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians,” which “amounts to the international wrong of apartheid.” CAMERA researchers have written rebuttals to the report in the past, critiquing its blatant falsehoods and distortion.
The resolution also references a list of firms from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) to allege that some $71,010 of Northampton funds are invested in “companies identified … as complicit in substantial, ongoing and international violations of international law and human rights in Israel and Palestine.”
Northampton, Massachusetts, retrieved via Flickr.com
Of course, this is the same AFSC that NGO Monitor had previous investigated and found in collusion with Hamas by covering up or downplaying its atrocities on October 7, 2023. This led to Israel barring the nonprofit from operating in Gaza. Other reports indicate that AFSC donates to Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, whose employees have included members of designated terrorist organizations, Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Hamas.
Despite the reliance on non-transparent sources, the resolution passed anyway. This led to a lawsuit being filed on behalf of 10 Northampton residents by the National Jewish Advocacy Center and Gevura Fund. Their argument? The resolution violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with U.S. foreign policy and meddling in foreign commerce, and that it violates state law by directing public investment on moral considerations. The lawsuit also states that “The Resolution provides no objective definitions for its key terms, including “complicity” or “human rights violations,” leaving enforcement entirely to subjective political judgement.”
Under Article 1 Section 8, Clause 3, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to manage trade and commercial intercourse with other nations, and states that no state should interfere or pass local laws conflicting with this regulation of commerce.
Additionally, the U.S.’ “One Voice” doctrine states that the federal government must present a single, unified position in international affairs, preventing different states from sending mixed signals to other countries.
There is legal precedent for striking down state-level boycotts on countries as well. In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, decided June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Massachusetts’ law restricting state agencies from doing business with Burma (Myanmar) was unconstitutional because it was preempted by federal law. In simple terms, the state-level law interfered with the President’s authority to direct economic sanctions and interfered with the federal government’s explicit authority to conduct international affairs and foreign commerce.
While the counterargument would be that the resolution was expressive and non-binding, the resolution may still violate the U.S.’s “One Voice” doctrine on foreign affairs.
In addition to this, Massachusetts Executive Order No. 130, aptly named the Anti-Boycott Covenant, prohibits state contractors from participating in international boycotts. Northampton’s resolution, if acted upon, could lead vendors potentially to be in violation of the order.
Despite its non-binding framework, Northampton City Council, in passing the resolution, still places ideological criteria into the duties of city employees, which could infringe upon these legal precedents.
Apparently, audi alteram partem is not standard operating procedure at WWLP. While the station’s job as a media outlet is not to tell viewers what to think about Northampton’s divestment resolution, withholding key information from its report prioritizes only one side of the argument, while omitting details that may have caused viewers to question the entire premise of the resolution itself. By presenting the divestment resolution without explaining potential constitutional and state-law arguments against it, WWLP decided for themselves which side was worth hearing.