BOSTON — Two courts have rejected audits sought by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, citing an attorney general opinion and intensifying a stalemate over a bid to audit the Legislature.

In nearly identical letters, the Executive Office of the Trial Court and the Appeals Court told the Office of the State Auditor they would not participate in website accessibility audits, pointing to a 2023 letter from Attorney General Andrea Campbell about how the auditor’s authority is limited to executive branch departments and opening a new front in the standoff over the voter-approved law authorizing audits of the Legislature.

The denials prompted a sharp response from DiZoglio, who says the courts’ position departs from decades of precedent and reflects fallout from the attorney general’s refusal to force legislative compliance with the ballot law. The dispute has also deepened a public feud between the auditor and the attorney general, with DiZoglio accusing Campbell of enabling a broader retreat from transparency.

In a Nov. 1, 2024 letter, Modesta Rosh, director of the auditor’s IT Audit Unit, informed Trial Court leadership that OSA would begin a performance audit “determining whether the Executive Office of Trial Court websites were accessible in compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) during the audit period from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.” A nearly identical letter was sent to the Appeals Court on the same day. The audit, Rosh wrote, would be conducted under Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.

Chief Justice Heidi Brieger of the Trial Court and Chief Justice Amy Lyn Blake of the Appeals Court declined.

In a response signed by General Counsel Daniel Sullivan, the Trial Court wrote that the auditor’s office may “‘audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to the aforementioned accounts of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth,’” but that, as confirmed by the attorney general in a Nov. 2, 2023 letter to DiZoglio, “the word ‘department’ in statutes such as these should in general encompass only executive branch departments.”

The letter from the court continues, “As an independent branch of government, the Judicial Branch is not under the SAO’s purview.”

The court further argued that the proposed review exceeded matters “directly related to the [Trial Court’s] accounts,” that WCAG standards are “not government regulations or otherwise enforceable,” and that the court is already complying with a U.S. Department of Justice final rule governing website accessibility.

“Therefore,” Sullivan wrote, “the Trial Court hereby respectfully declines to comply with the proposed audit.”

The Appeals Court sent a similar denial, signed by Blake, again quoting Campbell’s opinion and concluding that “as an independent branch of government, the Judicial Branch is not under the SAO’s purview.”

The Appeals Court also said the audit would exceed the auditor’s statutory authority and emphasized its ongoing compliance efforts under federal regulations.

DiZoglio responded with a lengthy Aug. 6, 2025 letter to court leaders, saying the refusal marked a “new position for the Court and departs from precedent—our office has audited the judiciary for decades.”

The auditor said the office sought only to “observe and report on actions taken in the past by administrative staff members in the performance of their administrative duties,” not to exercise judicial power.

“I was both surprised and incredibly disappointed to learn of your adamant opposition to a routine audit which simply sought to shine a light on areas where the court’s website could be less ‘bureaucratic and difficult to navigate,’” DiZoglio wrote. “Even if the court believes it is within its right to refuse such an audit based on the Attorney General’s most recent opinion, this complete 180 from past practice serves to further erode public trust in the courts.”

Citing remarks by Chief Justice Kimberly Budd about declining public confidence in the judiciary, DiZoglio asked, “I ask why now, of all times, would the court decide to stop participating in routine audits?” She added, “What is the public good that could come out of this decision?”

On GBH News’s “Boston Public Radio” last week, DiZoglio framed the refusals as unprecedented and tied them directly to the legislative audit fight.

“This is the first time in the history of the commonwealth that I just had two justices contact my office and say that due to the Attorney General’s position against the Legislature being audited that they don’t want to be audited anymore either,” she said.

The auditor accused the courts of “get[ting] in on the lack of transparency and accountability” at a time when people are distrusting government more. Calling it “a constitutional crisis,” DiZoglio said her “trust and faith in the judiciary right now is at an all time low.”

The auditor’s office told the News Service it audited courts as recently as 2024.

They conducted an audit of New Bedford District Court in 2024 and the Supreme Judicial Court in 2023. The denied Appeals and Trial Court website audits are the only ones their office has sought to conduct in the courts in the time period since the ballot question authorizing the legislative audit passed, they said.

Court spokesperson Erika Gully-Santiago said both courts “received a request to participate in an audit regarding website accessibility” and “declined to participate because, by statute, the auditor is empowered to audit the executive branch but not the Trial Court and the Appeals Court.”

She said both courts are “actively engaged in complying with applicable website accessibility guidelines.”

Gully-Santiago did not reply to a follow-up question about past judicial audits and whether court policy had changed since the last OSA audit in 2024.

The attorney general’s office also declined to weigh in.

Spokesperson Molly McGlynn did not respond to questions about whether the judicial branch must comply with OSA audits or whether the same logic cited in her 2023 letter about the OSA’s authority only over executive branch departments applies to courts.

Former Auditor Suzanne Bump in 2022 audited the Land Court and Juvenile Court, both departments within the Trial Court. Bump found the Land Court did not administer funds held in abandoned escrow accounts in accordance with state law and did not maintain an accurate publicly available master list of its partition commissioners. The examination of the Juvenile Court’s pretrial diversion program and use of restraints during court proceedings could not be completed because the court lacked data the OSA needed. That report was delivered back to the court with recommendations to improve its data collection and administrative practices.

Bump also audited the Appeals Court in 2020. The review examined its electronic filing system, and showed the court was improving its processes related to the collection and reconciliation of fees for appellant cases.

The latest episodes unfold amid an ongoing impasse over the 2024 ballot law enabling audits of the Legislature, which more than 70% of voters approved. Beacon Hill leaders have questioned the law’s constitutionality, and Campbell has not taken the Legislature to court to compel compliance.

When the News Service asked Campbell this week why her office has strongly enforced the multifamily housing rezoning law called the MBTA Communities Act but not the audit law, she repeated her stance that DiZoglio’s office has not provided her with all the legal materials she needs.

“MBTA Communities Law, we’ve been enforcing it since the beginning,” Campbell said. “Question 1, I want to enforce it. I can’t because the auditor isn’t giving us the information we need, and it’s as simple as that, she gives us the information. We’ll get it done.”

Campbell added, “We just had a hearing yesterday on the Right to Repair ballot question. We’ve been aggressive in our posture and enforcing that. We’ve not had any issue on any ballot question enforcement or any state agency or constitutional office. The only one we’ve had issues with was the auditor, and I think that’s telling in many ways.”

DiZoglio disputes that account. She has challenged Campbell to sue her to resolve the matter, accusing the attorney general of “stall tactics.” Campbell has said her office needs clarity from the auditor about the scope of any legislative audit before proceeding.

With the courts now invoking Campbell’s thinking to turn away DiZoglio’s audit efforts, the dispute has widened beyond the Legislature, leaving unresolved questions about the reach of the auditor’s authority.

Sam Drysdale and is a reporter for State House News Service and State Affairs Pro. Reach her at sdrysdale@statehousenews.com.