Pioneer New England Legal Foundation Files Lawsuit Challenging Cambridge Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

/in , /by

Requirement that 20 percent of a housing project remain permanently affordable places burden on developers that should be borne by the public as a whole

Read the Complaint

Cambridge – Pioneer New England Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit in state Land Court against the City of Cambridge on behalf of developer Columbia St, LLC, challenging the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires any property owner seeking a building permit for a project of 10 units or more to permanently set aside 20 percent of the square footage for affordable housing.

“The ordinance requires property owners to surrender fundamental property rights protected by the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions,” said Pioneer New England Legal Foundation attorney Paul Johnson.  “These requirements constitute unlawful land-use conditions under settled U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

Under the Cambridge ordinance, a developer who builds and sells condominium units must agree to sell 20 percent of the square footage at roughly 75 percent below market price.  For a rental project, the rent on 20 percent of the square footage cannot exceed 30 percent of the tenant’s income, and the tenant must meet maximum income-eligibility requirements.

The ordinance violates the long-standing legal principle that government cannot force a small subset of the population to shoulder public burdens that fairness dictates should be borne by the public as a whole.

“Cambridge is unfairly singling out real estate developers to bear the cost of solving the city’s affordable housing problem,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation.  “Real estate developers did not create the housing shortage.  It is a result of a lot of factors – primarily not building enough new housing to keep up with population growth.”

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that a city may, in some circumstances, require developers to pay money or even donate real estate as a condition of obtaining a building permit.  But those same decisions make clear that a municipality may impose such conditions only if it can present solid evidence that the specific project will worsen the problem the municipality seeks to address.

For an ordinance designed to address the shortage of affordable housing, the city would have to show that this project will, in some way, make the shortage worse.  In this case, Pioneer alleges in its complaint that the city cannot make that showing .  To the contrary, the project will more than triple the amount of livable square footage on the property.  It reduces the housing shortage; it does not exacerbate it.

“We recognize the importance of building affordable housing,” Johnson added.  “But the cost should be shared equally by the community as a whole.  We should not impose what is essentially a tax on new development to pay for affordable housing.”

The complaint was filed in Land Court late yesterday.

###

Legal Advocates Ask Supreme Court to End Home Equity Seizures in Tax Foreclosures 

/in , /by
Read the Brief

October 15, 2025 

After Major Court Victory in Massachusetts, Legal Advocates Bring Home Equity Theft Battle to the Supreme Court 

BOSTON, MA — The Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (Legal Foundation), Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS), and law firm Greenberg Traurig filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of homeowners in two Michigan cases that could determine how far governments can go in taking property for unpaid taxes. 

The brief asks the Court to review two cases, McGee v. Alger County and Joseph v. Iron County, which challenge local policies that impede people from recovering the remaining value of their homes after a tax foreclosure — even when their tax debt and all related expenses have been paid in full.  The process is often referred to as “equity theft.”  The Court is expected to decide whether to hear the cases in the coming months. 

The brief follows Pioneer New England Legal Foundation’s involvement in Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023), the landmark Supreme Court ruling that made clear: government entities cannot keep more than what is owed when taking property for unpaid taxes. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts summarized the ruling as establishing that “[t]he taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.“  

“These two new cases show that, even after Tyler, some local governments are imposing complex and unreasonable hurdles that strip people of their home equity for minor missteps,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of Pioneer New England Legal Foundation. “In one case, a homeowner’s claim was rejected simply because she used FedEx instead of certified mail — even though it was delivered on time. She lost the family’s wealth simply by using the wrong method of mail. That’s not justice.” 

“Often, it is the most vulnerable homeowners who are victims of equity theft.  Equity theft impacts elders in distress and others who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty keeping up with mail, understanding complex notices, and complying with short deadlines.  The Supreme Court has the opportunity to protect homeowners and the home equity that they have worked so hard to build,” said Todd Kaplan, a Senior Attorney at Greater Boston Legal Services.  

The brief urges the Court to consider the cases and overturn Nelson v. City of New York, an outdated decision that allows municipalities to keep all proceeds after foreclosure, regardless of how small the debt was, if the homeowner fails to fulfill procedural requirements set by the government. Advocates argue this practice violates the U.S. Constitution, which requires governments to pay just compensation when taking private property. 

The recent brief follows on the heels of a win in the Massachusetts courts for the Foundation and GBLS on home equity theft. In 2024, in the case of Mills v. City of Springfield, the Massachusetts Superior Court struck down the state’s tax lien statute finding that taking more than what is owed in taxes and fees is unconstitutional. In that case, the City of Springfield attempted to take Ashley Mills’s home, worth $230,000, when she could not pay $1,636.70 in real estate taxes. Following that decision, the Massachusetts state legislature created a new, fairer foreclosure process in the Commonwealth.   

To read the amicus, visit: Pioneerlegal.org 

A ruling on whether the Court will take up this important issue is expected before the end of the year. For additional information, visit: Home – Supreme Court of the United States 

To read about the Massachusetts’ cases: Fighting to End Unconstitutional Equity Theft – Pioneer New England Legal Foundation 

PNELF Admonishes DOR for Inaction on Unauthorized and Unconstitutional Commercial Tax Overcharges

/in , /by
Read the Notice

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.

 

Massachusetts Families Urges Court to Reverse Ruling Over Unconstitutional Conditions for Special Education Services

/in , /by
The Institute for Justice and PNELF filed a federal constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’s denial of special education services to children whose parents exercise their fundamental right to enroll them in private school. You can read the brief here:
As it says in the statement of the case-“…parents have a fundamental constitutional right to educate their children in private schools and a state may not deny or restrict an otherwise available benefit simply because the parent of the would-be recipient exercises a constitutional right.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 7/8/2025

BOSTON—Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling on behalf of clients Ariella and David Hellman and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison, two sets of parents with children who have special needs. The appeal seeks to reverse a dismissal of their lawsuit challenging a Massachusetts regulation that effectively bars children from receiving special education services to which they are statutorily entitled solely because those children attend private schools.

“Massachusetts guarantees all children with special needs that they can receive special education services,” said IJ Educational Choice Attorney David Hodges. “But Massachusetts regulators have made it almost impossible for a child whose parents enrolled her in private school to get the services the state says she needs. This regulation is an unconstitutional condition on parents who deign to exercise their century-old right to direct the education of their children.”

Massachusetts guarantees all students with special needs a statutory entitlement to special education services, no matter which schools they attend. These services can be as simple as classroom supplements and aids or involve intensive sessions with highly specialized behavioral therapists. The services are vital for children with special needs to help them overcome various learning challenges and properly educate them. Yet even though Massachusetts law entitles all children to the services, a Massachusetts regulation makes access to services practically unobtainable for children whose parents exercise their fundamental, constitutional right to enroll them in private schools.

The regulation does this by barring these children—and only these children—from receiving services in their schools. Unlike many other children with special needs, these children are required as a rule to leave their schools to get services, which effectively makes the services impossible to access. Massachusetts justifies this regulation with an interpretation of a state constitutional amendment that bars “aid” to private schools. This interpretation is erroneous, as special education services for disabled students are aid to children, not schools.

Moreover, the restriction makes many special education services impractical at best, or useless at worst. For many students, services are needed at the point of classroom learning and removing them from the classroom to access such services fails to help the children. Further, the restriction contravenes the Massachusetts special education statute, which says that the default for children is to receive services in their regular educational environment. Also, being removed from their school to access services is stigmatizing for these children and burdensome on working parents, who cannot spend time during the workday shuttling their children from location to location.

The restriction falls solely on parents who exercise their constitutional right to enroll their child in private school. If a child attends public school, she can receive services at the school. If the government enrolls a child in private school, which it often does with special needs children, the child can receive services in the private school. But a classmate who is enrolled in that very same private school by their parents isn’t allowed that option, even if the services they need are identical. In short, it is only parents who exercise their fundamental, federal constitutional right to send their children to a private school whose children are penalized by the Massachusetts regulation.

“Children with special needs are already among the most vulnerable people in society,” said Senior Attorney Renée Flaherty. “The last thing they need is for Massachusetts to discriminate against them because of how their parents exercised a constitutional right.”

#  #  #

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 successfully represented parents in educational choice lawsuits in numerous state supreme courts, intermediate courts of appeal, and trial courts, as well as four times at 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 is currently defending choice programs in Alaska, Ohio,  Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming alongside EdChoice Legal Advocates as part of the Partnership for Educational Choice.

PNELF, which serves as consulting counsel in this case, is a nonpartisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast. PNELF achieves its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.

PNELF: Boston Imposes Hidden Tax Penalty on Commercial Property Owners Who Appeal Assessments

/in , /by
Read the Notice

Boston — June 24, 2025 — The Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) has sent a formal notice to Massachusetts Department of Revenue Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder asserting that the City of Boston is unlawfully retaliating against commercial real estate owners who seek to challenge their tax assessments.

According to PNELF, the city’s Assessing Department has been quietly and systematically increasing property tax assessments on commercial properties that are under appeal at the Commonwealth’s Appellate Tax Board (ATB), imposing what amounts to a financial penalty on taxpayers who exercise their statutory rights under Massachusetts law.

“This practice is unauthorized and unconstitutional,” said PNELF President Frank J. Bailey, PNELF President and retired judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. “Targeting property owners for higher assessments simply because they filed an appeal, the city is punishing people for seeking redress through lawful channels. That’s retaliation—plain and simple—and a violation of fundamental constitutional protections.”

Appeals Secretly Trigger Substantial Tax Hikes

In its letter, PNELF describes how Boston has quietly overridden its own commercial property valuations, increasing assessments by in some cases millions of dollars in the fiscal year after a taxpayer files an appeal. These overrides are not disclosed on tax bills or public notices. Instead, internal property record cards obtained by affected taxpayers reveal notations such as “ATB dispute” or “override. open appeal.”

PNELF’s investigation also found instances in which the city has removed these internal references before releasing final public versions of the records—effectively concealing its actions.

“These added assessments are not based on market conditions or improvements to the properties,” Bailey explained. “They are based solely on the fact that the taxpayer is exercising their legal right to challenge an overvaluation. That is illegal under both state law and the federal and Massachusetts Constitutions.”

Legal Context: A Violation of Rights

Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 59, §§ 59, 64–65) allows taxpayers to appeal local tax assessments to the Appellate Tax Board. To do so, they must first pay the full assessed tax—even if they believe the valuation is inflated. As PNELF notes, the appeal process can take years to resolve. During that time, the City has been quietly increasing assessments on the same properties.

According to the letter, this practice violates:

  • Due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances under the First Amendment and Articles XI and XIX of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

  • The constitutional requirement of proportional taxation (Article X of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and Article CXII of the Amendments).

  • The statutory requirement that property be taxed based on “fair cash value” (G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A, 38, 52), meaning its true market value—not an arbitrary increase related to litigation status.

“This is a deliberate abuse of governmental authority to suppress legitimate legal claims,” Bailey said.

Post-Pandemic Market Still in Decline

The timing of Boston’s punitive assessment strategy is especially troubling given the continued decline of commercial property values in the wake of the pandemic. Even after reducing some valuations by approximately 10 percent, the city’s assessed values remain significantly above actual fair market value, according to owners and market analysts.

PNELF Demands State Action—or Will Pursue Legal Relief

PNELF calls on the commissioner of revenue to immediately investigate the city’s conduct under his statutory authority (G.L. c. 58, § 1A) and to order Boston to cease the practice and refund affected taxpayers.

If the Department of Revenue or the city fail to act within 30 days, PNELF is prepared to seek judicial relief, including injunctive and declaratory actions under Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 249, § 5), as well as other constitutional remedies.

“This issue affects not only the rule of law, but the integrity of the Commonwealth’s tax system,” Bailey said. “Boston’s current conduct sets a dangerous precedent—one that could chill the willingness of taxpayers across Massachusetts to lawfully dispute unfair tax burdens.”Shape

###

About Pioneer New England Legal Foundation:

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal research and litigation entity, organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. PNELF 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, PNELF works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.

Pioneer Public Interest Law Center and New England Legal Foundation Unite Under New Banner: Pioneer New England Legal Foundation

/in , /by

Boston, MA — The Pioneer Public Interest Law Center (Pioneer Law Center) today announced its strategic alliance with the New England Legal Foundation (NELF), as the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF). Building on a common mission of advancing educational opportunity, government transparency and free enterprise, PNELF will expand services to defend and promote these freedoms across and beyond New England. 

Brackett Denniston III, founding chair of Pioneer Law Center, will continue to serve as chair of PNELF. Frank J. Bailey will lead the newly expanded organization as president. Natalie Logan, President and General Counsel of the New England Legal Foundation, will join the PNELF Board along with NELF Directors Paul Cushing, Paul Dacier, Brian Leary and Kevin Martin as part of a purposeful advancement of the organizations’ shared values and mission. Additionally, Ben Robbins, formerly Senior Staff Attorney at NELF, has joined the PNELF staff to amplify appellate advocacy efforts and to expand its capacity in trial litigation. PNELF will continue to engage NELF’s state Advisory Councils, which serve as a direct link to each state’s legal community and provide real-time knowledge of emerging issues of concern to the organization. 

“We are excited that Pioneer New England Legal Foundation will be continuing the mission of the storied NELF to fight for educational choice, free enterprise and government accountability,” said Brackett Denniston III, Chair of the PNELF Board. “Now, more than ever, these freedoms are critical. By joining forces, the best legal minds in the business will amplify our work in courtrooms across New England and the nation.” 

“This strategic transition exemplifies the two organizations’ shared dedication to defending and promoting educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country,” said Frank Bailey. “We welcome leaders in the legal community to PNELF’s Board, and the addition of NELF’s talent will strengthen our ability to achieve our common mission. We now are better positioned to advance justice across the region and beyond.” 

Natalie Logan added, “As we conclude decades of impactful independent operations, we are proud that the New England Legal Foundation brand and mission will live on through the work of the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation. This is an exciting new chapter in our shared effort to protect individual liberties and promote economic freedom.” 

NELF anticipates winding down its operations in the coming months. Moving forward, the work of both organizations will continue and be strengthened through PNELF, which will serve as the primary business-centric, public interest champion for appellate advocacy, impact litigation and legal policy reform in the region. 

This alliance marks something of a homecoming for many members of the Pioneer Law Center board. Bailey and current board members Ern Haddad, Stan Twardy, and others previously served on NELF’s board and Advisory Councils. Lena Goldberg and Brackett Denniston each chaired NELF for many years, deepening the shared legacy that now continues through this partnership. 

The news comes on the heels of a Pioneer Law Center announcement last week that former District of Massachusetts United States Attorney Andrew Lelling, former Director of MEMA Kurt Schwartz, and noted attorney and Sullivan & Worcester partner Joel Carpenter also recently joined the PNELF Board of Directors. 

For additional information visit PioneerLegal.org. 

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (formerly Pioneer Public Interest Law Center) is the region’s leading public interest law organization dedicated to advancing economic liberty, free enterprise and individual rights. Building on the legacy of the New England Legal Foundation, whose independent operations are winding down, Pioneer New England Legal Foundation carries forward a shared commitment to promoting justice and defending constitutional freedoms through strategic litigation and legal advocacy. 

Pioneer Law Adds Lelling, Schwartz and Carpenter to Board

/in , /by

Boston, MA—Pioneer Public Interest Law Center today announced that it has added three new board members including the former head of MEMA, a former U.S Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and a prominent law firm chairman.   

“We are thrilled to add Kurt Schwartz, Andrew Lelling and Joel Carpenter to the Pioneer Law Center team,” said Frank J. Bailey, President. “These preeminent lawyers bring refreshing new perspectives along with passion for the rule of law to the Law Center.  They are committed to helping advance and expand our mission.”  

“It’s an honor to welcome these fine attorneys to the Law Center Board,” said Brackett Denniston III, Chair. “Each brings a wealth of expertise and a distinguished track record of legal excellence that will greatly enhance our work. Their shared commitment to advancing the Law Center’s mission of protecting the rule of law will be invaluable as we continue to drive impactful, principled legal solutions through litigation and amicus briefing in state and federal courts.”  

“We are privileged to have such great minds from all walks of the legal community join the Pioneer Law Center Board,” said Bailey. “Their distinguished careers will be instrumental in advancing our mission of defending and promoting educational options, ensuring accountable government, and promoting economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country.” 

Kurt Schwartz 

Since retiring in 2019 after 37 years of government service in Massachusetts, Kurt Schwartz has consulted with government agencies, corporations, and non-profits in the areas of emergency management, homeland security, crisis leadership, and COVID-19 preparedness and operations.  He also serves on the National Boards of American Friends of Magen David Adom, IsraAID-US, American Friends of Herut, and is a Director of Charm Sciences, Inc.      

From 2007 to 2019, Kurt was a Gubernatorial appointee to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security where he served in several leadership roles including Undersecretary of Law Enforcement, Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Governor’s Homeland Security Advisor, Chair of the Massachusetts Homeland Security Advisory Council, and Director of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.  He also was a Gubernatorial appointee to the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Port Authority and served on FEMA’s National Advisory Council and as Co-Chair of the International Emergency Management Group.  

Between 1987 and 2007, Kurt worked as a state criminal prosecutor, including 5 years as Chief of the Criminal Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and 8 years as Chief of the Special Investigations Unit in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office.     

Earlier in his career, Kurt served as a police officer and emergency medical technician.  

Kurt holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Wesleyan University and a Juris Doctor degree from Boston College Law School.  He is married, has two grown children, and lives in Concord, Massachusetts.      

Joel Carpenter 

Joel Carpenter is a partner at Sullivan & Worcester, where he served as co-managing partner for many years. Joel is particularly experienced in the tax structuring of complex business and investment arrangements using partnerships, limited liability companies, and Subchapter S corporations. He advises a broad range of private and institutional investors, including real estate investment firms, on a wide variety of U.S. federal income tax matters. This includes fund formation matters, the acquisition and disposition of property, structuring debt and equity investments, equity compensation plans, and tax planning for investors. 

Joel also advises on the tax structuring of corporate mergers and acquisition transactions, as well as the financing of emerging companies. He has served on the boards of several enterprises and provides individual income and estate tax planning services for individuals of substantial means. 

Andrew Lelling 

Andrew Lelling is a former United States Attorney and senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official with deep experience in white collar, securities, and international enforcement matters. He defends companies and individuals in complex civil litigation and government investigations. He also leads internal investigations and advises on compliance with federal, state, and international laws. He has successfully tried dozens of cases in federal and state courts. 

Before joining Jones Day in 2021, Andrew was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, capping a 20-year career with the DOJ. During that time, he handled complex enforcement matters both as a line prosecutor and senior DOJ official, including corporate fraud prosecutions, parallel investigations with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), trade secret theft, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) matters, civil and criminal health care enforcement, and international money laundering. Widely known for leading “Operation Varsity Blues,” the nationwide investigation of corruption in college admissions, he led major initiatives targeting COVID relief fraud, anti-kickback claims against pharma companies under the False Claims Act (FCA), and bank fraud during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Andrew crafted federal enforcement policy on a national level, including initiatives targeting foreign economic espionage, trade secret theft, and cybercrime, as chair of the Attorney General’s Cybercrime and Intellectual Property Subcommittee.  

In the early 2000s, Andrew led the investigation of the 2000 presidential election in Florida and negotiated human rights issues with the Chinese government. He teaches securities regulation and trial practice at Boston-area law schools. 

American Bar Association Elects President of the Pioneer Law Center as Vice Chair of Judicial Division

/in , /by

The Hon. Frank J. Bailey (ret.) will Advance to Chair in 2026

(Boston, Mass.)- The Pioneer Public Interest Law Center today announced that its president, Hon. Frank J. Bailey (ret.) has been elected as the next Vice Chair of the Judicial Division of the American Bar Association  (ABA). Judge Bailey will advance to chair-elect and then chair in 2026.

“The American Bar Association is proud to welcome retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frank J. Bailey as our Judicial Division’s next Vice Chair, ” said ABA President Bill Bay. “Judge Bailey’s extensive experience and dedication to the rule of law makes him a strong leader for the division. His commitment to addressing the challenges faced by the judiciary today will be vital as we continue to uphold the integrity and independence of our courts.” 

The Judicial Division comprises 3,000 federal, state, tribal and local judges who serve throughout the United States and serves as the “voice of the American judiciary” within the ABA. Bailey was nominated by the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges for election to this role. He follows the Honorable J. Michele Childs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit as the nominee of the federal judges.

“It is an honor to be elected as the next Vice Chair of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Division,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center. “In today’s climate, it is imperative that our great judges, court officials and tribal leaders come together to share ideas and innovative solutions as we face new challenges, including AI and judicial security, across the legal system.”

In its capacity, the Judicial Division proposes policy to the ABA House of Delegates, coordinates with the ABA President on public statements regarding issues of importance to the American Judiciary, conducts outreach on judicial education to the public -including high school and college students- and works with law students and young lawyers to advance the rule of law in the U.S. and abroad.

Bailey was a long-time partner of Sherin and Lodgen LLP and an associate at Sullivan & Worcester LLP.  He also served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Herbert P. Wilkins at the SJC.

Superior Court Judge Invalidates “Equity Theft” Law as Unconstitutional

/in , /by

SPRINGFIELD, MA –A Massachusetts Superior Court has ruled that a state law allowing municipalities (or private actors to whom municipalities sell the right to foreclose) to foreclose on homes due to property tax debt without having to pay the homeowner the difference between the taxes owed and the value of the home is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case at hand.

Read more

MIAA to Allow Virtual School Students to Participate in Home School District Athletics

/in /by

Under pressure from lawsuits, agency reinstates long-held policy

BOSTON – Pioneer Public Interest Law Center (PPILC) and the law firm of Sullivan & Worcester LLP are pleased to announce that after an 18-month legal battle, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) has reversed its position and will once again allow children who attend Commonwealth Virtual Schools to play interscholastic sports in the school districts where they live.

“While I am deeply gratified that the MIAA leadership finally decided to abide by state and federal constitutional requirements, I am deeply disappointed that children have missed as much as two years of participation on their school sports teams,” said PPILC President Frank J. Bailey.

Nicholas M. O’Donnell, a partner at Sullivan & Worcester LLP who also represented the students, added, “I am filled with admiration for our clients, who stayed the course long after the rule change robbed them of their own seasons, to make a positive change for other students.”

In 2022, MIAA announced that students from Massachusetts’ two virtual schools — TECCA Connections Academy (TECCA) in Walpole and Greater Commonwealth Virtual School (GVCS) in Greenfield — were no longer eligible to participate in interscholastic athletics in their home districts, even though such participation had been successfully in place for seven years prior.

Under the earlier policy, virtual school students could participate in athletics at their local public high school if the heads of both the virtual and traditional schools agreed to it. There had never been an issue with the mutual agreement system, nor was there any outreach from MIAA about any possible change. Many school districts allow virtual school students to participate in all other extracurricular activities, such as theater and music programs.

The families of students at TECCA and GVCS challenged the MIAA’s decision.

In late 2022, PPILC, a Massachusetts public interest law firm, teamed with Sullivan & Worcester to file suit against the MIAA on behalf of two students who were suddenly prohibited from competing as part of their local district teams.

One plaintiff, who had attended public schools in his hometown for five years, joined the lawsuit during his sophomore year in high school. While attending his local public high school, he was relentlessly mistreated and bullied by his classmates — experiences that destroyed his self-confidence and were greatly exacerbated by an anxiety disorder.

By last year, his third at TECCA, he had gained the self-confidence to try out for and make junior varsity soccer team at his local public high school, where he had a great experience. But just before the first game of the season in September 2022, he was informed that he was no longer eligible to play. Having now missed two seasons, his hopes of playing high school soccer are over.

The other named plaintiff is an outstanding hockey player who is in line to be recruited at the highest level of collegiate hockey. He was adopted from another country at 18 months old and attended local public schools through ninth grade, but struggled with learning issues likely attributable to neglect before he was adopted.

After enrolling at TECCA nearly two years ago, he received the academic support he needed, and the online format can accommodate his busy club hockey travel schedule. The student has also competed as part of his local high school’s lacrosse team, but the new MIAA rule prevented him from continuing at TECCA.

The families of both students own homes and pay real estate taxes that support their local public schools. The plaintiffs are representative of the diverse student bodies at public virtual schools that also include students with medical issues, those seeking the flexibility to proceed at a slower — or, not infrequently, a faster academic pace — and students who are very involved with the arts. The schools provide districts and parents alike with a far less expensive option to private schools that address these needs.

After over a year of litigation, MIAA announced in October 2023 that it had reversed the decision to ban virtual school students from participating in local school sports. The decision was ratified in November.

“Pioneer Public Interest Law Center is dedicated to preserving families’ right to choose the educational environment that best suits their child’s needs,” Bailey said. “We will continue to protect those rights in and out of court.”

MAKE AN IMPACT

Stay Informed

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation is a non-partisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast. Pioneer New England Legal Foundation achieves its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.

CONTACT US
185 Devonshire Street
11th Floor, Boston, MA 02110
617-819-1010