On February 17, Massachusetts issued an official declaration that the 1692 witch trials in Salem and surrounding communities were unlawful. The move follows centuries of historical scholarship, legislative reviews, and prior partial exonerations, and represents a formal acknowledgment by the commonwealth that the prosecutions and executions were products of legal error, social fear, and unreliable evidentiary practices. Background: The trials occurred in 1692–1693 in the Province of Massachusetts Bay amid a wave of accusations of witchcraft. Dozens of people were accused; 19 were executed by hanging and at least five others died in custody. Proceedings relied heavily on spectral evidence (testimony that the accused’s spirit or specter appeared to the complainant), coerced confessions, and confessions extracted under duress or fear. Colonial legal standards and procedures differed markedly from modern due process, and contemporary critics—both at the time and in later centuries—pointed to procedural irregularities and the role of communal anxiety. Legal and symbolic significance: The declaration frames the events not merely as historical tragedy but as an unlawful series of prosecutions by the standards of both contemporary legal norms and the rule of law the commonwealth now upholds. Previous actions included legislative pardons and partial reversals: in the 1950s and 2000s, Massachusetts passed laws to exonerate named individuals and remove legal disabilities from descendants. This new declaration differs in tone and scope by explicitly characterizing the entire episode as unlawful, thereby broadening the moral and legal repudiation of the trials. Motivations and process: Officials cited historical records, long-standing scholarly consensus about the trials’ defects, and the desire to formally recognize harms to victims and communities. The declaration follows consultations with historians, legal experts, and civic groups; it is largely symbolic rather than capable of producing legal remedies for descendants. Nevertheless, proponents argue that official acknowledgment serves educational purposes, supports memorialization efforts, and reinforces commitments to due process and protections against scapegoating. Responses and context: Reactions have varied. Historians generally welcomed the formal acknowledgment as consistent with centuries of research demonstrating procedural abuses and mass-hysteria dynamics. Local communities and organizations that preserve the history of the trials also welcomed the declaration as reinforcing memorial and educational initiatives. Some commentators cautioned that symbolic declarations cannot fully redress suffering or fully undo legal records; others emphasized the importance of public acknowledgment in shaping civic memory. Remaining questions: While the declaration addresses the unlawfulness of the trials broadly, it does not create mechanisms for compensation or legal exoneration beyond prior specific legislative acts. The declaration also underscores the ongoing challenge of interpreting seventeenth-century legal practices through modern standards: historians note the need to place events in their period context while still recognizing the moral and legal failures. Legacy: The 1692 trials remain a focal point in American memory for the dangers of fear-driven prosecutions and the misuse of legal institutions. By declaring the trials unlawful, Massachusetts adds a formal layer of repudiation to earlier exonerations and continues efforts to ensure the events serve as a cautionary lesson about due process, evidence, and the social conditions that enable persecution.