Pioneer New England Legal Foundation Joins Institute for Justice as Commonwealth Faces September 21st Deadline

BOSTON: In a significant move, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered Massachusetts to respond to a case challenging a state rule that blocks children with disabilities from getting special education services at the private schools their parents chose for them.

The case, Hellman v. Craven, was brought on behalf of Massachusetts parents Ariella and David Hellman and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison by the Institute for Justice (IJ), with the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (Legal Foundation) serving as consulting counsel. The petition names Katherine Craven, Chair of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, as respondent. Under state law, Attorney General Andrea Campbell represents Craven and the Board in their official capacities as state officials sued in the course of their public duties.

At the heart of the case is a Massachusetts regulation that bars children with disabilities from receiving legally required special education services at the private schools their parents chose for them, forcing them instead to leave school during the day to receive those services elsewhere. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the regulation, prompting the petition asking the Supreme Court for relief. Demonstrating the importance of the case, seven amicus briefs were filed by fourteen attorneys general; civil rights, education, and religious groups; and a leading scholar from Boston University, at a stage when most such petitions receive none.

“Massachusetts guarantees special education services to all children. State regulators should not undermine that guarantee simply because parents exercise a constitutional right,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation. “Special needs services should not be dictated by wealth, religion, or creed. We are heartened at the outpouring of support and compassion we are seeing across the nation for our clients.”

The caliber of the briefs is meritorious; one brief came from a coalition of fourteen states representing nearly 100 million Americans. Five of the seven briefs were authored by former law clerks to the Justices. All send a powerful signal that the petition should be taken seriously.

The seven amicus briefs include:

• A coalition of fourteen state Attorneys General, led by South Carolina and West Virginia, together representing nearly 100 million Americans
• The Alliance Defending Freedom (Washington, D.C.)
• ExcelinEd, the Foundation for Excellence in Education (Tallahassee, FL), founded by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush
• The New Civil Liberties Alliance (Arlington, VA)
• The Council for American Private Education (Washington, D.C.) and Agudath Israel of America (New York, NY), on a joint brief
• The Center for the Rights of Abused Children (Phoenix, AZ)
• Professor Charles L. Glenn, professor emeritus of educational leadership and policy at Boston University and former director of urban education and equity efforts for the Massachusetts Department of Education, who led the desegregation of Boston Public Schools

These amici underscore the case’s broader constitutional stakes: the right of parents to direct their children’s education, and to ensure their children are not penalized, through loss of a statutory benefit, for exercising that right. As the fourteen-state coalition wrote in its brief, the Massachusetts regulation does not merely withhold a service; it uses a child’s guaranteed entitlement as leverage to pressure families back into the public school system.

The Commonwealth is expected to file its response by September 21, with petitioners’ reply to follow two weeks later. A decision on whether the Court will take up the case could come as early as this fall, though in some cases the timeline extends into the following year.

A link to all briefs is available on the Supreme Court’s docket at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-97.html

###

About the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation: The Legal Foundation is a national, nonpartisan think tank that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government, and economic opportunity. The Legal Foundation pursues its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation, and serves as consulting counsel in Hellman v. Craven.

About the Institute for Justice: IJ is the nation’s leading law firm defending educational choice programs and expanding educational access and opportunity. Since its founding in 1991, IJ has represented parents in educational choice lawsuits in numerous state supreme courts, intermediate courts of appeal, and trial courts, as well as four times before the U.S. Supreme Court (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Carson v. Makin). IJ serves as lead counsel in this case.

Media Contact:
Philip Suderman, IJ
psuderman@ij.org

At this stage, the court has recognized that these claims deserve to be heard on the merits. We look forward to proving that the City of Boston violated its commercial taxpayers’ fundamental constitutional protections, including the right to petition the government, which the Court described as “one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights”.  The Court also expressed concern that any violation of the right to petition “chills all commercial property owners from exercising their right to seek an abatement.”

Hon. Frank J. Bailey

President

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation

For further information on the case, please watch our video below:

Class action challenges city’s unlawful penalties against commercial taxpayers who exercised their right to appeal; seeks court intervention to end this retaliatory scheme in next fiscal year

BOSTON, MA — Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (the Legal Foundation) and Sullivan & Worcester LLP today filed on behalf of their client 148 State Street a class action lawsuit against the City of Boston, alleging that the Assessor’s Office has illegally retaliated against commercial taxpayers for exercising their constitutional right to appeal property tax assessments before the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) since 2024.

“This case is about the rule of law,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of Pioneer New England Legal Foundation and a former federal judge. “Boston’s Assessor’s Office has decided that when citizens exercise their right to appeal an unjust tax, they deserve to be punished. That is not how a lawful government behaves. Both our federal and state constitutions give citizens a right to petition the government, including unfettered access to the courts. Boston has made commercial landowners pay a heavy price for exercising that right.”

The lawsuit, which was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court, seeks to prohibit the city from retaliating against taxpayers who appeal their assessments, to declare the city’s policy unlawful, and to order repayment of excess taxes collected for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

The named plaintiff in this class action is the owner of 148 State Street which represents all commercial property owners, large and small, that have been victimized by this unlawful scheme.

City’s Conduct and Legal Violations

According to the complaint, the City of Boston’s Assessor’s Office deliberately and systematically violated state and federal law by overriding its own determinations of fair market value for taxpayers who filed appeals.

Even when the assessors agreed that a property’s value had declined (e.g. from $120 million to $100 million) it allegedly overrode the CAMS software system and added back value under a “discretionary adjustment” box. In FY2024, those adjustments were labeled “ATB Appeal” or “ATB Dispute.” In FY2025, the labels disappeared, but the practice seemingly continued: roughly half the decline in value was added back to every appealed property. The pattern produced a consistent penalty ratio across the board but the scheme was hidden from taxpayers because it was not visible on the tax bills that the city issued.

The impact was clear and unlawful: commercial taxpayers who appealed their assessments were charged higher taxes than comparable properties that did not appeal. The lawsuit states that the City of Boston thereby violated the very laws that govern assessors’ duties and the constitutional rights of citizens who petition their government for relief.

The lawsuit asserts four independent legal violations by the city:

• It breached Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 2A(a) by failing to determine “fair cash value” as required;
• It violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by penalizing taxpayers for exercising their right to petition;
• It violated Articles XI and XVI of the Massachusetts Constitution by denying free access to the courts;
• And, it violated Amendment Article CXII of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires that all property within a class be taxed proportionally and equally.

“At a time when commercial properties are declining in value after the pandemic, property owners are already facing challenging times,” said Patrick P. Dinardo of Sullivan & Worcester. “For Boston to further penalize property owners in an apparent effort to intimidate them from seeking review at the ATB is unconscionable. It discourages investment in the city which hurts every Boston citizen.”

Why a Class Action

The lawsuit seeks class certification because the city’s unlawful practice applies uniformly to affected taxpayers. Virtually all commercial property owners who appealed to the ATB in prior years saw a comparable “discretionary add-back” applied to their FY2024 or FY2025 assessments. A class action allows the court to decide one central question—whether the city may retaliate against taxpayers for appealing—without forcing hundreds of nearly identical lawsuits through the system.

The Legal Foundation began its investigation earlier this year and gave written notice to the city and the Department of Revenue at least three times since June. The Legal Foundation’s research at City Hall uncovered dozens of examples of the retaliatory tax scheme. After the city failed to offer any meaningful response on how to remedy the impact of its assessment practices, 148 State Street and the class of affected owners were left with no choice but to resort to litigation.

“The sooner the city steps up and addresses its unlawful practices, the better for the city and for every taxpayer who plays by the rules,” added Bailey.

About Pioneer New England Legal Foundation

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation is a public-interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country. Through legal action and public education, the Legal Foundation works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.

About Sullivan & Worcester LLP

Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best in class client service.

Media Contacts:

Amie O’Hearn, Communications Director
Pioneer New England Legal Foundation
aohearn@pioneerinstitute.org

Charlie Chieppo, Senior Media Fellow
Pioneer Institute
cchieppo@pioneerinstitute.org
617-548-7146

Lucinda Ellison
newsPRos
lucinda@newspros.com
610-574-9035

The Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) is calling out the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) for refusing to act on clear evidence that the City of Boston is penalizing commercial taxpayers for exercising their constitutional right to appeal overassessments.

In response to PNELF’s most recent letter detailing these illegal practices, the Commissioner of Revenue claimed his office could not substantiate the findings, asserted he could not discuss specific properties, and insisted he was not allowed to advocate for any individual taxpayer. He also declined PNELF’s repeated request to meet and review the evidence.

PNELF’s reply, sent today, specifically calls out the flaws in the Commissioner’s response:

– He offered no explanation of any steps taken to investigate the evidence PNELF provided.
– PNELF never requested a discussion of specific taxpayers.
– PNELF never asked him to advocate for an individual taxpayer.

“This is about fairness, transparency, and ensuring the City cannot punish those who exercise their rights,” Frank Bailey stated. “The Commissioner’s refusal to address the evidence is unacceptable.”

We encourage the public to review our third letter to the Commissioner here. If you have been affected by this issue, we want to hear from you. Please email Frank at frank.bailey@pioneerlegal.org.