Filed Date: May 31, 2023
Closed Date: June 20, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about grant funding that favored women, people of color, and LGBTQ people.
On May 31, 2023, a white male owner of a for-profit firearms academy filed a lawsuit in the District if Massachusetts against the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development and the Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation (the administrator of the grant), alleging that the state's program for pandemic relief, the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program, discriminated against the plaintiff based on race, sex, and sexual orientation. Applicants for the grant were required to meet at least one of the following criteria: minority-owned, woman-owned, veteran-owned, immigrant-owned, first-generation immigrant- owned, disabled-owned, LGBTQ+-owned, and/or focused on reaching markets predominantly made up of socially and economically disadvantaged and historically underrepresented groups or underserved markets. The plaintiff brought forth one count alleging a violation under the Equal Protection Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the plaintiff would apply for the grant if his race, sex, or sexual orientation made him eligible to do so.
The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgement, a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program’s eligibility preferences, attorneys’ fees, and nominal damages in the amount of $1.00. The plaintiff also sought to certify a class of “small businesses and small business owners, which would have been eligible to apply for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Inclusive Recovery Grant Program if the businesses were minority-owned, female-owned, or LGBTQ- owned.” The plaintiff was represented by Pacific Legal Foundation. The case was assigned to District Judge William G. Young.
On June 2, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added another named plaintiff. The named plaintiff was also a white heterosexual male who owned a for-profit business and was not eligible for the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program because of his race, sex, and sexual orientation.
The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class on June 7, 2023. The proposed class was the same as the one proposed in the complaint: “ all small businesses and small business owners that would have been eligible to apply for Massachusetts’s Inclusive Recovery Grant Program if the business were minority-owned, woman-owned, or LGBTQ+-owned.”
On June 8, 2023, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. They requested that the defendants be prevented from releasing funding decisions and paying out any grants from the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program unless they re-open applications after removing the eligibility requirements based on race, sex, and sexual orientation and select applicants without consideration of their race, sex, or sexual orientation. The plaintiff argued they would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction because the defendants would exhaust the grant funds before this matter is decided on the merits.
On June 16, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case for 60 days as the plaintiffs discovered the defendants would not be releasing grant funding yet. The defendants also stated they would review their eligibility criteria. This stay was approved by the court on June 20, 2023.
Two organizations, Black Economic Council of Massachusetts and Amplify Latinx, filed to intervene in this case on July 25, 2023. They alleged they had a direct interest in the case because their organizations advocate for Black and Latinx communities’ economic opportunities. Further, the intervenors argued that the defendants would not protect their interests because of the defendants’ prior failures to support minority-owned businesses. On August 8, 2023, the plaintiffs opposed the motion to intervene arguing that the defendants had the same interests as the intervenors. Further, the intervenors did not claim any of their members applied for the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program nor is the interest they have in maintaining race-based eligibility criteria a protectable right. The court announced on September 5, 2023, that it would not take action on the motion because of the stay.
On September 22, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to reopen the case so that the court could accept the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal. The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal the same day. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants agreed to not award grant funds under the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program to applicants who only indicated that their business is minority-owned, woman-owned, or LGBTQ+-owned, and that funds would only be given to applicants who indicated that their business focuses on reaching markets predominantly made up of socially and economically disadvantaged and historically underrepresented groups or underserved markets. This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Cara Claflin (5/11/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67453990/parties/dalton-v-hao/
Houghton, Jonathan (Massachusetts)
Casey, Timothy James (Massachusetts)
Davis, Tasheena M. (Massachusetts)
Ellsworth, Felicia H. (Massachusetts)
Gelbort, Hannah Elise (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67453990/dalton-v-hao/
Last updated March 8, 2026, 5:37 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 31, 2023
Closing Date: June 20, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs were two heterosexual white males who were small for-profit business owners in Massachusetts.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
State
Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Massachusetts 1:23-cv-11216
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Dalton v. Hao, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44265/ (last updated 5/11/2025).