The Massachusetts federal district court judge overseeing a challenge to recent changes to the Massachusetts Right to Repair Law in Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Healey announced today that he will issue a decision in the case no later than March 7, 2022. Judge Douglas Woodlock made the announcement during a hearing on recent filings by the parties debating the import of evidence submitted by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, after the close of evidence, showing that some OEMs have disabled telematics systems on vehicles sold in Massachusetts to avoid running afoul of the new law.

During the hearing, Judge Woodlock pressed the parties—as he did during the first round of closing arguments in the case—on whether Massachusetts law permits him to sever sections of the law that may be preempted by federal law. Lawyers from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office argued that although no Massachusetts case has addressed whether a court can (or cannot) sever sections of a law passed by public ballot initiative, the court should apply “first principles” used in determining whether laws passed through the legislative process can be severed. Judge Woodlock responded that there is “no basis” for thinking that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would allow him to do so. The court’s persistent focus on this issue suggests that it may be leaning toward deciding that at least one section of the law is preempted, and therefore the entire law must be struck down.

Judge Woodlock also had pointed questions for the parties about recently submitted evidence concerning the attempt by two auto manufacturers to “comply” with law (or at least “avoid” violating it) by disabling the telematics systems in model year 2022 vehicles sold in Massachusetts. He expressed frustration that information about the measures taken by these OEMs had not been provided to the court during or immediately following the bench trial in this action last summer. At the same time, however, Judge Woodlock questioned whether the evidence was even relevant and whether it would have made any difference if the parties had known about it during that bench trial.