Questions are mounting over a controversial Massachusetts courthouse project after a key business partner stepped away from the development amid an ongoing ethics dispute. The project involves a real estate company led in part by Conan Harris, the husband of Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a member of the progressive “Squad.”
The controversy centers on a proposed $2 billion courthouse development in Springfield, Massachusetts, where Harris serves as a principal with CoJo Real Estate, a company that is part of the Liberty Junction development team selected for the project.
This week, one of Harris’ longtime business partners, John Barros, announced he would divest from CoJo Real Estate following growing scrutiny over the bidding process. Barros currently serves as the interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority.
According to a statement released through his attorney, Barros believes he complied with all applicable ethics laws but decided stepping away from the company was in the public interest so the courthouse project could move forward without additional controversy.
Despite Barros’ departure, Harris has not announced any plans to leave the company, and the legal battle over the project continues.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by two unsuccessful bidders, who argue the contract award was compromised by conflicts of interest during the selection process. Their legal challenge focuses largely on Barros’ involvement, claiming his positions within state government created the appearance of an unfair advantage for the winning development team.
Critics point out that members of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority also serve on the state agency responsible for selecting the Liberty Junction proposal, raising questions about whether the procurement process was sufficiently independent.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to throw out the existing contract and require state officials to restart the bidding process.
Following Barros’ decision to exit the company, the losing bidders released a statement saying his departure does not resolve their concerns.
Responding to Barros’ departure, the plaintiffs said the decision reinforces their long-standing argument that the courthouse selection process was fundamentally flawed. They maintained that leaving the project after the contract has already been awarded cannot erase what they believe were serious problems with how the winning bid was selected.
The plaintiffs argue that Massachusetts taxpayers deserve a procurement process that is transparent, competitive, and fully compliant with state law. They say the only appropriate remedy is to reopen the bidding process and allow all qualified developers to compete under what they believe would be a fair process.
Beyond the lawsuit, some critics have questioned whether Pressley’s position in Congress may have indirectly benefited her husband’s business interests, although no evidence has been presented showing that the congresswoman participated in the courthouse selection process or influenced the awarding of the contract.
Importantly, Rep. Pressley has not been accused of wrongdoing, nor has she been named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Public records do not indicate she played any role in evaluating proposals or selecting the winning development team.
Financial disclosure reports filed by Pressley for 2025 show Harris reported business income ranging from $100,001 to $1 million. The disclosures also indicate the couple earned as much as $250,000 in rental income, although congressional financial reports disclose income only in broad ranges rather than exact amounts.
The courthouse project represents one of the largest public development contracts in western Massachusetts in recent years, making the ongoing legal challenge especially significant. The outcome could determine not only whether the project moves forward as planned but also whether state officials are required to conduct a new procurement process.
The controversy has also renewed public attention on Harris following an unrelated incident earlier this month. Authorities investigating a homicide discovered a deceased individual inside one of Harris’ Boston rental properties. Law enforcement has not suggested Harris was involved in the death, and there have been no allegations of criminal wrongdoing against him in connection with that investigation.
Even so, the separate incident has placed additional public scrutiny on Pressley’s family while questions surrounding the courthouse contract continue to unfold.
A court hearing in the courthouse case is scheduled for August 11, when both sides are expected to present arguments over whether the bidding process complied with state procurement laws.
For now, the lawsuit remains active, and the future of the multibillion-dollar courthouse project could ultimately rest with the courts. While critics continue to argue the procurement process should be restarted, state officials have defended the project, and no findings of wrongdoing have been made against Rep. Pressley or her husband.
With the legal battle set to continue, taxpayers, state officials, and the competing developers will be watching closely to see whether the contract stands or whether one of Massachusetts’ largest public construction projects will be forced back to the drawing board.