Dershowitz KICKED OUT — Police On The Scene…

A Martha’s Vineyard food vendor twice refused to serve Alan Dershowitz because of his politics and clients—spotlighting a growing trend of ideological blacklisting that chills free association and tests civil rights law.

Refusal of Service Over Politics Sparks Legal and Cultural Fight

At the West Tisbury Farmers Market, Good Pierogi co-owner Krem Miskevich twice declined to sell pierogi to attorney Alan Dershowitz, citing his representation of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Dershowitz argued the refusals were discrimination based on his political and pro-Israel stance, labeled the episode “McCarthyism,” and vowed to pursue legal remedies that would require the market’s vendors to sell to every customer without political litmus tests. Local and national outlets quickly amplified the dispute and the divided reactions.

Reporting describes two confrontations: an initial exchange that drew a market manager and police, and a follow-up encounter that escalated tensions. Coverage based on Dershowitz’s video and subsequent write-ups says an officer indicated vendors could refuse customers and escorted Dershowitz from the market during the first incident. The vendor later posted a public statement explaining the refusal in moral terms, while accusing Dershowitz of harassment and misgendering during the second encounter, which Dershowitz denies.

The Law: Ideological Discrimination Gap in Massachusetts

Massachusetts public accommodations law bars discrimination based on protected characteristics like race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The statute does not list political ideology, leaving a gap when services are denied because of a person’s views or client associations. Legal analysis suggests Dershowitz faces an uphill battle unless he can link the refusal to a protected class or show that market bylaws require viewpoint-neutral service, which could open a contract or policy-enforcement route.

Commentary notes that national free-speech cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative turn on compelled expressive content, while this dispute concerns premade food and customer identity. That distinction narrows available First Amendment arguments and shifts focus to state law and the market’s own rules. As of August 11, 2025, reports indicate Dershowitz had threatened litigation but none had been confirmed filed, underscoring the legal uncertainty and the importance of any internal market policies.

Community Reaction and Policy Stakes for Everyday Commerce

Local coverage documented lines forming at Good Pierogi after the story spread, reflecting how ideological conflicts can boost solidarity buying even as they deepen polarization. The market now faces practical governance questions: whether to codify viewpoint-neutral service obligations, how to train vendors for de-escalation, and how to handle filming and on-site disputes. Clear policies could reduce repeat incidents and litigation risks while balancing vendor autonomy with predictable public access at a community venue.

For conservatives concerned about creeping viewpoint discrimination, the episode illustrates how political litmus tests can reach ordinary transactions. Dershowitz’s push for rules that require service to all customers raises a core civic norm: equal access to public-facing commerce independent of lawful viewpoints. If the market adopts neutral-service policies, it could set a template other community markets follow. If not, similar standoffs may proliferate, normalizing ideological gatekeeping in routine economic life.

Wider Implications: Free Association, Equal Access, and Rule Clarity

Short-term, the dispute delivered reputational consequences and a surge of attention for all involved. Long-term, a test case could clarify whether vendor rules can meaningfully fill gaps that state law leaves on ideological discrimination. Farmers markets and small vendors may revisit training and bylaws to align with public accommodations principles while avoiding compelled speech claims. Absent legislative updates, policy clarity at the market level may be the most immediate tool to protect viewpoint-neutral access without eroding constitutional boundaries.

No Pierogi For You: Dershowitz Denied Food In Martha’s Vineyard Over His Political Views
https://t.co/2zuVZWFRh0

— Dr. Clayton Forrester (@DrClaytonForre1) August 11, 2025

Key uncertainties remain. Reports rely partly on Dershowitz’s posted video and second-hand accounts of police comments without an official department release. Market bylaws are not publicly detailed in the cited coverage, leaving potential claims contingent on internal documents. Until litigation is filed or policies published, the practical resolution depends on whether the market codifies neutral service and whether parties choose a legal forum to test Massachusetts’ limits on ideological refusals.

Sources:

Dershowitz, pierogi-gate feud with Martha’s Vineyard vendor escalates

Are You Aware Of The Alan Dershowitz Martha’s Vineyard Pierogi Situation?

After Dershowitz dustup, Islanders line up for pierogis

Dershowitz v. Good Pierogi: Does Alan Dershowitz Have a Discrimination Claim for PierogiGate?

Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz confronts pierogi stand again, accused of misgendering chef