Two Medford residents have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down the city’s newly enacted Values-Aligned Local Investments Ordinance, which requires the city to divest public funds from companies involved in weapons manufacturing, fossil fuels, private prisons and entities accused of human rights violations. The lawsuit sets up a legal and political battle over the limits of municipal authority and the role of local government in international affairs.
The complaint, filed on Feb. 6 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, was brought by residents Zachary Chertok and Eliot Jokelson, who argue that the ordinance exceeds the city’s legal authority, conflicts with state investment laws and improperly intrudes into federal foreign policy. The lawsuit names the City of Medford, the Medford City Council and Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn as defendants.
The ordinance was passed by the City Council in a 6–1 veto override in November after Lungo-Koehn initially vetoed it, citing legal and financial concerns.
According to the text of the ordinance as proposed on Aug. 5, 2025, the city would be prohibited from investing in any company “directly, knowingly and over time contributing to severe violations of human rights and international humanitarian law as determined by international bodies and conventions.”
Critics of the ordinance, including The Gevura Fund and the National Jewish Advocacy Center, which are the primary organizations backing the lawsuit, say those standards are vague and carry significant implications for the Jewish community.
“Investments and divestments should be made looking at the best overall outcome for the municipality and not overstepping their legal authority as far as what’s state and what’s federal law,” Brigette Herbst, executive director of The Gevura Fund, said.
Herbst said she believes the ordinance could lead to divestment from Israel, sending a troubling message to Massachusetts’ large Jewish community at a time of rising antisemitism.
“We’ve seen a rise of antisemitism around the world … [and] in America,” Herbst said. “Let’s not add fuel to that fire. … We can do that by making sure that the laws that we’re passing are really researched and looked at from every lens, not just from one particular lens.”
Rachel Sebbag, litigation counsel for the National Jewish Advocacy Center and the Gevura Fund, asserted that the ordinance is unconstitutional.
“The Medford ordinance is preempted by both federal and state law, as well as being in violation of state law governing use and investment of municipal funds,” Sebbag wrote in a statement to the Daily. “Any town considering similar divestment ordinances or resolutions should be forewarned that such action would be unconstitutional, improper and in breach of the town’s fiduciary duties owed to its taxpayers.”
On the federal level, the lawsuit invokes the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that municipal divestment policies targeting foreign conduct impermissibly encroach on the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign policy. The lawsuit cites the Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, which struck down a Massachusetts law restricting state contracts with companies doing business in Myanmar.
On the state level, the complaint argues that Massachusetts laws governing municipal investment, which require prudent strategies based on safety, liquidity and yield, preempt the city from adding ideological criteria to investment decisions.
The complaint also argues that the ordinance puts the city’s treasurer in an impossible position, forcing them to choose between complying with the ordinance and fulfilling state-mandated fiduciary duties, a conflict the plaintiffs say constitutes irreparable harm.
City Council President Zac Bears, who helped shepherd the ordinance through the council, pushed back strongly.
“Medford’s investment ordinance ensures that our city serves as a responsible steward of public funds by investing in peace and the public good, not war and violence for private gain,” Bears wrote in a statement to the Daily. “The ordinance uses ethical investment standards published by a major Wall Street institution, Morgan Stanley. Investors rely on these standards to know if companies are complicit in violations of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Bears also argued the ordinance has ample precedent, pointing to state laws barring retirement fund investments in weapons manufacturers and other local ordinances restricting climate-harmful investments.
“I’m proud that Medford enacted this ordinance, and I hope more cities and towns will take similar common-sense approaches and join the chorus alongside us,” Bears wrote.
Lungo-Koehn declined to comment on the lawsuit until she could meet with counsel.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the ordinance is unlawful and an injunction that will prevent the city from implementing it. For Herbst, the case is about more than just Medford.
“If there are … other cities around the country looking to do things like this [ordinance], I hope this [lawsuit] helps educate them so that they’re aware of the full impact of what these kinds of laws can do,” she said.
