Opinion of the Justices to the Senate (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-073-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12092 OPINION OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE. Beach. Public Land. Real Property, Beach, Littoral property. On May 26, 2016, the Justices submitted the following response to a question propounded to them by the Senate. To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit this response to the question set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on April 13, 2016, and transmitted to us the next day. For reasons outlined below, we are unable to answer specifically, either yes or no, the question as it has been presented to us. The order concerns a bill, House No. 753, that is presently pending in the Senate committee on Rules, entitled “An Act preserving public trust rights in land affected by ocean erosion.”[1] The order indicates that “the bill was reported favorably out of the joint committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture” before being referred to the Senate committee. The bill proposes an amendment to G. L. c. 91, § 35. Chapter 91 is the Massachusetts waterways statute; together with the regulations promulgated thereunder, it provides for extensive State regulation of the Commonwealth’s interest in tidelands and other coastal and inland waterways, including great ponds. Section 35 presently consists of one sentence: “The provisions of this chapter relative to great ponds shall apply only to ponds containing in their natural state more than ten acres of land, and shall be subject to any rights in such ponds which have been granted by the commonwealth.” The bill would add a second sentence to § 35, following the existing text, that states: “Where sea level rise, storms, or other natural processes have caused the landward or lateral movement of a barrier beach into an area which was previously occupied by the bottom of any Great Pond or onto any other public land, the portion of the barrier beach relocated into the former bottom of the Great [P]ond or onto other public land shall be and remain in public ownership.” The order further recites that “grave doubt exists whether the bill, if enacted, would comply with” art. 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that “some decision must be made on the current bill prior to the […]
Opinion of the Justices to the House of Representatives (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-097-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11883 OPINION OF THE JUSTICES TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. General Court. Constitutional Law, General Court, Appropriation of money, Taxation. Statute, Appropriation of money, Amendment. Taxation. On June 15, 2015, the Justices submitted the following response to questions propounded to them by the House of Representatives. To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit this response to the questions set forth in an order adopted by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2015, and transmitted to us on that date. The order poses five questions concerning the State budget legislation for fiscal year 2016. All of the questions involve Part II, c. 1, § 3, art. 7, of the Massachusetts Constitution, which we will refer to as the origination article.[1] They ask, among other things, whether certain provisions in the House budget bill rendered it a “money bill” within the meaning of the origination article, and whether the Senate improperly “originated” a money bill in violation of this article. As explained below, we are of the view that the House bill was a money bill, and that the Senate did not improperly originate a money bill.[2] Bills and amendments at issue. We begin by summarizing the history of the various bills and amendments that give rise to the questions, and by describing generally the provisions that are at issue, reserving for later a more detailed analysis of the legal effect of those provisions. On March 4, 2015, acting pursuant to art. 63, § 2, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by art. 107 of the Amendments, and pursuant to G. L. c. 29, § 7H, the Governor filed with the House his recommended budget for fiscal year 2016, which, as is customary, was designated House No. 1. Among its many provisions was section 27, entitled “Delay FAS 109 Deduction,”[3] which provided: “Subsection (2) of section 95 of chapter 173 of the acts of 2008 is hereby amended by striking out the figure ’2016′, inserted by section 189 of chapter 165 of the acts of 2014, and inserting in place thereof the following figure:- 2017.” The Governor’s submission described section 27 as follows: “This section delays until tax year 2017 the start of the deduction allowed to certain publicly-traded companies to offset increases in their net deferred tax […]