In a contentious decision echoing through Massachusetts’ political corridors, Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian, once romantically entwined with Democratic Governor Maura Healey, now finds herself elevated to the prestigious seat of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. Despite murmurs of concern over potential conflicts of interest, the Massachusetts Governor’s Council, dominated by Democratic representatives, sealed Wolohojian’s fate with a 6-1 vote, propelling her from an intermediate appellate court to the apex of judicial authority in the state.
The spotlight on Wolohojian’s nomination shone brightly from its inception, fueled by whispers of her intimate history with Healey, the nation’s first openly lesbian governor. Amidst calls from the state’s Republican Party to veto the nomination on grounds of favoritism, Marilyn Petitto Devaney, a seasoned member of the council, acknowledged the unprecedented media scrutiny but emphasized that objections did not assail Wolohojian’s professional competence or ethical fortitude.
The intertwining paths of Healey and Wolohojian trace back to their legal days at what is now known as Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. Over eight years, their personal and professional lives melded until Healey’s ascension to the position of Massachusetts’ attorney general in 2015. Yet, with Healey now embracing a new partnership with Joanna Lydgate, questions lingered over the dynamics of her past liaison with Wolohojian, particularly as the latter assumes a pivotal judicial role.
Healey’s endorsement of Wolohojian marks her second judicial appointment since assuming office, underlining a pattern of confidence in allies turned jurists. With Wolohojian’s extensive experience, dating back to her appointment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court by Democratic former Governor Deval Patrick in 2008, her legal acumen has weathered over 900 written opinions and spearheaded explorations into the application of generative artificial intelligence within the state’s legal apparatus.
Yet, as Wolohojian faced the council for scrutiny, the specter of her past connection with Healey loomed large. While accolades for her judicial proficiency echoed throughout the chamber, Councilor Tara Jacobs voiced reservations regarding the nomination’s optics and the potential necessity for recusal in cases entangled with Healey’s governance.
Despite reassurances from Wolohojian regarding her impartiality and commitment to assessing recusal on a case-by-case basis, Jacobs’ lone dissent underscored lingering apprehensions over an allegedly “insular” nomination process.
In her defense, Healey urged the council not to let personal affiliations overshadow Wolohojian’s merit, asserting that Massachusetts deserves nothing short of exemplary judicial stewardship.
As the gavel fell, sealing Wolohojian’s elevation, Massachusetts witnessed a complex convergence of personal history, political allegiance, and judicial destiny, leaving lingering questions about the delicate interplay between personal relationships and professional appointments in the hallowed halls of justice.
