BOSTON – PioneerLegal applauds today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carson v. Makin striking down a Maine law that allows districts without their own public schools to contract with or reimburse the families of students who attend private or public schools located elsewhere, but which explicitly excludes religious schools.
Two years ago, in the 2020 decision, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that, “A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
“While the Maine law allowed parents to access the public or private education that best suits their children,” said PioneerLegal President Frank J. Bailey, “its exclusion of religious schools clearly could not pass constitutional muster after Espinoza.”
Again writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts found that the “unremarkable” principles in Espinoza suffice to resolve this case and that for the Court to “accept Maine’s argument, our decision in Espinoza would be rendered meaningless.” Bailey also noted that “a law, such as the one at issue in Carson, that targets religious education will rarely satisfy strict scrutiny analysis.”
For over a century, until the early 1980s, religiously affiliated schools were included in the Maine school choice program. The Maine Legislature re-codified the program in 1982 to prohibit parents and students from using the law to access religious schools, as was the intention when it was passed in 1873.
“We are thrilled that the law will once again reflect the intent of those who enacted it, as it did for over a century,” said Jamie Gass, Pioneer Institute’s director of school reform. “This ruling will restore educational opportunity to families across rural Maine.”
PioneerLegal submitted an amicus brief in Carson, and Pioneer Institute submitted an amicus brief in Espinoza, which was cited in Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence.
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PioLegalCarson-1.png5121024Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2022-06-21 11:23:582022-06-21 12:52:44PioneerLegal Applauds Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Carson v. Makin
Summary language fails to clarify a critical matter for voters—an overall increase in education and transportation funding is not mandatory since other revenue is entirely fungible
BOSTON – To ensure that Massachusetts voters will have an accurate description of the tax hike amendment to the state Constitution when they cast their ballots in November, PioneerLegal has filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit challenging the Attorney General’s summary language and “yes”/”no” statements that describe the amendment. The suit will be heard by the Commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court.
The amendment to the state Constitution would add a 4 percent surtax on all annual income over $1 million, including capital gains (sales of homes and other assets) and most small business income. The proposed summary language put forward by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State reads that the revenue from the tax will be dedicated to fund public education and transportation.
“While revenue from the tax would be deposited in transportation and education accounts,” said Brackett Denniston, chairman of PioneerLegal, “there is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from diverting money previously dedicated to transportation and education to different purposes, as has occurred in other states.”
Authored by Daniel P. Ryan, Caroline A. Kupiec, and Jillian Friedmann of Sullivan & Worcester at the request of PioneerLegal, the brief establishes four key points:
The Legislature is granted constitutional authority in the budgeting process, which allows it to allocate funding among various budget categories. The brief outlines how the Attorney General’s own brief on an identical proposal in 2018 concedes that surtax revenues are fungible and may not result in any increase in appropriations for education and transportation. In the argument of the case before the Supreme Judicial Court, the Attorney General’s counsel also conceded this point and Chief Justice Gants made the same point (cf. linked video, minute 52:00).
The Legislature could have required that surtax revenues be additive to current education and transportation spending but explicitly rejected legislative attempts to do so. During their debates on the proposed ballot measure, legislators made their intentions crystal clear by rejecting two amendments (by votes of 154-39 and 156-40) requiring new revenues to be invested in addition to existing expenditures.
A close analysis of the annual budget for education and transportation, which together exceed $18 billion, as well as their component parts — line-item expenditures, dedicated funds, and special obligation bonds — demonstrate this fungibility, based on the Massachusetts Constitution and well established legislative practice.
Finally, the brief provides a close analysis of the experience in California, where revenues derived from a similarly “dedicated education” tax largely substituted existing appropriations, which were then diverted to other purposes.
“It is of utmost importance that any ballot initiative that seeks to amend the Massachusetts Constitution is accurately described to voters,” said Denniston. “Absent an accurate summary of the effect of a vote, citizens of the Commonwealth are, in fact, robbed of their voice in the governance of Massachusetts.”
About PioneerLegal
PioneerLegal, LLC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal research and litigation entity that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government, and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country. Through legal action and public education, PioneerLegal works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/SJC.jpg400764Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2022-04-26 13:53:202023-10-05 15:34:59PioneerLegal Amicus Brief Supports Court Challenge to Attorney General’s Misleading Wording of the Proposed Tax Hike Amendment
Retiring U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Frank J. Bailey to become first president of PioneerLegal
BOSTON – Pioneer Institute is pleased to announce the formation of PioneerLegal, the first non-profit, public interest law firm of its kind in New England, to defend and promote educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast.
“We aim to create a robust community of professionals committed to leveraging the law to advance equal opportunity and responsive, responsible government,” said Brackett Denniston, PioneerLegal’s chairman. “And we will push back on government entities when they unreasonably limit the right of individuals to grow businesses and jobs in the New England region.”
PioneerLegal’s work will be guided by three principal tenets:
Educational opportunity is of cardinal importance in a just and merit-based society.
Government power must be transparent, accountable and protective of the rights of citizens.
Markets free from unwarranted intrusion and a robust business and jobs market provide the greatest opportunity for the greatest number.
PioneerLegalwill achieve its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.
PioneerLegal will also offer informational and educational programming relating to litigation, provide research on important legal issues and sponsor educational programs.
Judge Frank J. Bailey, upon his retirement later this year, will become PioneerLegal’s first president. This was made public by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in a press release on February 15, 2022.
“The recruitment of Judge Bailey, together with the reputations of our Board members as fair-minded professionals of high character and expertise, speaks volumes about the quality of work and impact you will see from PioneerLegal,” Denniston said.
PioneerLegal is led by legal professionals of the highest reputation. In addition to Denniston, of Goodwin Procter, its Board of Directors includes:
• Jonathan Albano, MorganLewis
• Former Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Robert Cordy, McDermott Will & Emery
• R. Scott Henderson, Bank of America
• Frank Jimenez, GE Healthcare
• Mark Matuschak, WilmerHale
• Lisa Rickard, U.S, Chamber of Commerce
• Elke Trilla, Sullivan & Worcester
• Stan Twardy, Day Pitney
“We are so pleased to have the opportunity to work with such high-caliber legal professionals,” stated Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “This board will drive an agenda focused on upholding constitutional government, ensuring economic opportunity for all workers and entrepreneurs, and educational opportunity for all children.”
The Institute began incubating a legal initiative in 2015, with notable participation in such cases as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court, June 2020), Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (2019) and Anderson v. Healey (2018). With the establishment of PioneerLegal as a non-partisan organization governed by legal professionals, the Institute will be able to advance strategic litigation to support its mission.
During its history, Pioneer Institute has been instrumental in establishing various social entrepreneurship organizations including the Charter Schools Resource Center, which in 2002 was spun off as Building Excellent Schools, a 501(c)(3) organization focused on training high-quality charter school entrepreneurs across the country and the Partnership for Massachusetts’ Future, a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization.
Pioneer Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan research institute. Pioneer’s mission is to develop and communicate dynamic ideas that advance prosperity and a vibrant civic life in Massachusetts and beyond. Pioneer’s vision of success is a state and nation where our people can prosper and our society thrive because we enjoy world-class options in education, healthcare, transportation and economic opportunity, and where our government is limited, accountable and transparent. Pioneer values an America where our citizenry is well-educated and willing to test our beliefs based on facts and the free exchange of ideas, and committed to liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.
PioneerLegal is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy legal research and litigation entity, organized under Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. PioneerLegal is a non-partisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast. Through legal action, including litigation, and public education, PioneerLegal works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.
Get Updates
PIONEER LEGAL
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/pioneerlegal.png5121024Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2022-02-25 15:51:532022-03-01 06:47:31New Pioneer Institute Law Center to Focus on Educational Opportunity, Economic Freedom, and Accountable Government
Challenges Maine statute that excludes religious schools from school tuitioning law
BOSTON – Pioneer Institute has filed an amicus curiae brief in Carson v. Makin urging the Supreme Court of the United States to strike down a provision of Maine law. The Court will hear oral arguments in Carson this morning (December 8) at 10 am. The Maine law being challenged allows districts that don’t have their own schools to contract with a school or pay for students that choose to attend public or private schools, but explicitly excludes religious schools.
The Court’s 2020 ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, a case in which Pioneer also filed an amicus brief that was cited by Justice Samuel Alito in his concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority decision that “A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
“Maine law allows parents to access the public or private education that best suits their children – except if the school is religiously affiliated,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “We believe Espinoza makes it clear that such a provision runs counter to the Constitution.”
For over a century, until the early 1980s, religiously affiliated schools were included in the Maine school tuitioning program, under which communities that don’t have their own schools can either contract with a school or allow parents to use the per-pupil spending allotment to attend the public or private school of their choice.
The Maine state legislature, driven by the Senate chair of the education committee, re-codified the program in 1982 to prohibit parents and students from using the law to access religious schools, as was originally intended in 1873.
The Pioneer brief was co-authored by Michael Gilleran of Fisher Broyles and Ryan McKenna. Gilleran also was the lead attorney in Pioneer’s amicus brief in the landmark Espinoza case.
“We believe the Maine law clearly doesn’t pass constitutional muster under Espinoza, Gilleran said. “I hope this case will reiterate the Court’s position and open educational opportunity to more students across the country.”
The Court is expected to rule on the case before its current term ends at the end of June 2022.
For well over a decade, Pioneer Institute has used its legal work, research, events, polling, and op-eds to highlight nativist, anti-Catholic educational and legal barriers to school choice in Massachusetts and across the country. In 2018, Pioneer produced a 30-minute documentary, “Big Sacrifices, Big Dreams: Ending America’s Bigoted Education Laws,” that chronicles the struggles of four families in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Georgia, all states with so-called Blaine amendments that prohibit public money from flowing to religiously affiliated schools, to send their children to parochial schools.
Pioneer’s mission is to develop and communicate dynamic ideas that advance prosperity and a vibrant civic life in Massachusetts and beyond. Pioneer’s vision of success is a state and nation where our people can prosper and our society thrive because we enjoy world-class options in education, healthcare, transportation and economic opportunity, and where our government is limited, accountable and transparent. Pioneer values an America where our citizenry is well-educated and willing to test our beliefs based on facts and the free exchange of ideas, and committed to liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/Carson.png5121024Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2021-12-08 14:45:082023-10-06 11:53:20Pioneer Institute Files Amicus Curiae Brief in U.S. Supreme Court School Choice Case
BOSTON – Pioneer Institute today announced that it has submitted an amicus curiae urging the United States Supreme Court to hear Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which challenges a state constitutional amendment marked by religious bias.
The amendment in question is a so-called Blaine amendment. It prohibits public resources from flowing to individuals to send their children to religiously affiliated schools, preventing Catholics and immigrants from receiving the kind of education that would enable them to become successful.
In the Espinoza case, Kendra Espinoza, a suddenly-single mom, sought a better education for her daughters. In public school, one daughter was bullied and the other struggled in her classes. Both children would later thrive in the parochial school of her choice.
Ms. Espinoza’s decision to send her daughters to Stillwater Christian School was not easy and caused her family financial difficulties. Her access to a badly needed scholarship was denied after the Montana Supreme Court struck down a legislatively established education tax credit program. The basis for the court’s decision was the state’s 130-year-old Blaine amendment.
While the money for the scholarships the Espinoza family accessed came from private sources, the Montana Innovative Education Program Credit provided the donors with tax credits for their contributions. According to the Montana Supreme Court, the Blaine amendment prevented Ms. Espinoza’s children from gaining access to the scholarships.
“Acts motivated by religious animus violate the first and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” said Cornelius Chapman, an attorney and the author of “The Know-Nothing Amendments: Barriers to School Choice in Massachusetts.” “Even if they appear neutral on their face, they are impermissible if designed to persecute or oppress a religion or its practices.”
Legislative history and press coverage of efforts to enact a national Blaine amendment in the 1870s show that Catholicism was clearly the target of amendment proponents.
Sadly, anti-Catholic bias still animated a majority of Congress in 1889, when the enabling act authorizing Montana to form a state constitution required that it include a Blaine provision. The clause forced on Montana by an anti-Catholic Congress exists to this day in substantially unaltered form.
“Kendra Espinoza, like so many other parents, sought the education that best suits the needs of her children,” said Pioneer’s Executive Director Jim Stergios. “It is hard to believe that an amendment steeped in anti-Catholic bias still stands in her way 130 years after its passage.”
Massachusetts was the first of 38 states to adopt Blaine amendments. Two amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution are the work of the virulently anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party, which came to power in the state elections of 1854, after a wave of Catholic immigrants arrived in the Commonwealth during the Irish Potato Famine.
The Pioneer brief was filed April 12, 2019. It was drafted by a team led by Michael Gilleran of Fisher Broyles and Professor Dwight Duncan of the University of Massachusetts School of Law. They were assisted by Harvard Law School students Annika Boone, Benjamin Fleshman, Anastasia Frane, James McGlone and Grant Newman.
The Court is expected to announce whether it will hear the case by early summer.
In 2018, Pioneer produced a 30-minute documentary, “Big Sacrifices, Big Dreams: Ending America’s Bigoted Education Laws,” that chronicles the struggles of four families in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Georgia, all states with Blaine amendments, to send their children to parochial schools. View the film here.
Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/kendra-1.jpg10501865Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2019-04-29 19:31:212023-10-06 14:15:15Pioneer Institute Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Hear School Choice Case
BOSTON – On January 8th, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Ben Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, in which the SJC will decide how the United States Supreme Court’s June 2018 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will affect Massachusetts law.
Pioneer Institute, through its public interest law arm, PioneerLegal, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case prepared by WilmerHale’s Mark Matuschak and Robert Kingsley Smith.
Professor Ben Branch has taught for 38 years at UMass Amherst’s Isenberg School of Management. For decades, he has objected to having to pay compulsory service fees. To stop having to pay without consent, Dr. Branch and three other non-union educators brought the lawsuit now before the SJC.
The PioneerLegal briefargues that the First Amendment precludes coercing non-union public employees into financially supporting speech preferred by unions. As held by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, consent is crucial; no money may be constitutionally taken for such purpose from a non-union public employee without that employee’s prior consent.
PioneerLegal was active in Janus, filing a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, and then filing a second friend-of-the-court brief during the Court’s deliberations.
“No rights are more essential than the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment,” said PioneerLegal Research Fellow Jim McKenna. “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and preserved that right in Janus, and the SJC now has the opportunity to apply that principle in Massachusetts.”
In Branch, the Supreme Judicial Court will consider the constitutionality of Massachusetts laws that allow the compulsory collection of fees from non-union public sector employees. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has held non-consensual collection to be unconstitutional, the SJC is likely to strike down the statute.
About Pioneer Institute and PioneerLegal
Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.
PioneerLegal, as the public-interest law initiative of Pioneer, utilizes a legal-based approach to work to change policies that adversely affect the public interest in Pioneer’s core policy areas.
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/Janus.jpg8001230Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2019-01-08 19:41:012023-10-06 14:16:23Press Release: Pioneer Institute Filed Amicus Brief in Case Applying Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling to MA
Brief argues that Proposition 80 violates the state constitution, would result in harmful fiscal policy
BOSTON – PioneerLegal, Pioneer Institute’s public-interest law initiative, together with the Tax Foundation, has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Judicial Court in support of the Massachusetts High Technology Council and others, in the case Christopher Anderson et al. v. Maura Healey.
The plaintiffs assert that Proposition 80, a ballot initiative to install a graduated income tax for Massachusetts, violates the state constitution and should not be allowed to appear on the Commonwealth’s November ballot.
Proposition 80 calls for adding an additional 4 percent state tax on all annual taxable income above $1 million and earmarking the resulting revenue specifically for transportation and education.
The brief argues that Proposition 80 violates the state’s constitution, which forbids initiative petitions from bundling multiple, unrelated provisions and usurps the Legislature’s exclusive authority over the state treasury. It contends further that passage of the measure would result in poor and risky fiscal policy.
Proposition 80 combines three unrelated provisions: a tax increase, an appropriation for transportation, and an appropriation for education. Drafters of the state constitutional provision on initiative petitions sought to ensure that petitions express a single unified public policy statement that voters could accept or reject, and specifically sought to prevent the bundling of unpopular provisions like a tax increase with more popular ones such as increasing education and transportation funding.
The state constitution also forbids initiative petitions from including a “specific appropriation,” defined as seizing all revenue from a designated source and appropriating it for a specified use – in this case, transportation and education. The provision is designed to ensure that special interests don’t usurp legislative control of the state treasury.
In 2014, a computer and software services tax was enacted to help balance the state budget. When it was shown to negatively impact the Commonwealth’s economy, the Legislature quickly repealed it.
In 2000, state voters approved a ballot initiative to reduce the state income tax to 5 percent by 2003. When the economy cratered soon after its passage, the Legislature stepped in and froze the rate at 5.3 percent.
Since Proposition 80 would amend the state constitution, such swift action would be impossible. The process of amending the constitution again to change or repeal Proposition 80 would take a minimum of three years. This form of budgeting by ballot initiative is a textbook example of depriving the government of the flexibility required to efficiently address changed circumstances and unexpected crises.
“There’s a reason why setting fiscal policy by constitutional amendment is almost universally condemned,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios.
The brief also cites research by Pioneer and other entities showing that states like Connecticut and New Jersey that enacted similar policies actually saw adverse economic consequences within just a few years.
“This tax increase would catapult Massachusetts from the middle of the pack to among states with the highest capital gains rate in the nation. It would also significantly increase the taxes paid by many small pass-through businesses and encourage ‘tax flight’ by individual taxpayers,” said John Sivolella, Senior Fellow in Law and Policy at Pioneer, who leads PioneerLegal. “The overall effect would be to inhibit financial growth in the Commonwealth, and adversely affect state revenues.”
About Pioneer
Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.
https://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/Untitled-design-2022-02-25T153255.440.png5121024Sean Wonghttps://pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/PPILC-Logo-2C-Final-300x61.jpgSean Wong2018-02-06 15:28:092023-10-06 15:45:14Pioneer Institute and the Tax Foundation File Amicus Brief in Graduated Income Tax Ballot Initiative Case
MAKE AN IMPACT
Stay Informed
"*" indicates required fields
PioneerLegal is a non-partisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast. PioneerLegal achieves its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.
