As you probably know by now, I’m a member of the “Repeal the Casino Deal” (RTCD) legal team. RTCD is trying to put a question on the November ballot that, basically, would make several forms of casino gambling illegal in Massachusetts. After the Attorney General ruled last September that the question did not qualify for the ballot, RTCD sued, and in the meantime has collected enough signatures so that, if the AG’s ruling is overturned in court, the question will almost certainly be on the ballot this fall (there is one more, rather small signature-gathering hurdle, but there’s little doubt that RTCD will easily surmount it).
The RTCD legal team has filed three briefs with the Supreme Judicial Court; the AG has filed two; and several interveners and amici curiae have filed briefs as well. Oral argument in the case is at 9 a.m. this Monday, May 5. You can read all the briefs in the case at this link, and you can watch oral argument live on Monday morning at this link. Video of the argument will also be archived at the same site is now available at this link.
integrity, and hard work win the day, David.
…And good luck out there today! This is big. What we do here in Massachusetts, fighting back the abuses of big corporations and building a more positive role for our government, is a model that can be seen around the country. And its all lead by citizen activists from the bottom up, not the top down!
not that one can tell outcome from oral arguments, but was the one or two issues that Justices hit on most?
interested in any feedback from the session.
I did read the fine print on the livestream site and saw that it said that the archived arguments are usually available in four days or so, but that seemed more like a general rule than something necessarily reflective of their practice in particularly high-profile cases. So I thought I’d ask if anyone had more specific information. I can’t be the only person who wasn’t available at 9:00 this morning to watch it live, but who would very much like to watch it (or listen to it, or even see a transcript).
the Justices seemed most interested in the question whether already-issued licenses (like the slots parlor license) are “property” that cannot be “taken” without the payment of just compensation. Justice Cordy jumped right in on that topic – here is an early exchange, as reported by the Globe:
I thought the AG’s brief had conceded that once the licenses were issued, they could still be rescinded by a change in the law, however that change might come about. Although I’ll need to re-read; it could be that the question of compensation never arose at all.
several interveners raised the “license is property” argument. So there are shifting alliances in this case on the many issues raised.
If an issued license can still be rescinded by a change in law, how can a theoretical license they may never receive anyway not be?
Seems like “license is property” is a much more solid argument than “possibility of maybe someday getting a license is property”. So if license is not really property, then a fortiori possibility of license is not.
Under the Wonderland case, they could issue the license and then repeal the next day with no problem. Why can’t they repeal before that? It makes no sense.
and some of the Justices were just as puzzled as you are. You should read the briefs, in which the AG expounds her theory at length, and in which our team rebutted it. The link to all the briefs is in the post.
After the voters of this state ended dog racing?
And didn’t the court reject that argument?
I don’t see why any justice would be surprised about this just a few years after the dog track issue.
The bottom line is people have a right to regulate business, up to and including deciding a particular kind of industry can be banned…. like casino gambling.
Imaginary justice: “So cites and town and taxpayers can simply and with no never mind be made subject to millions of dollars of new costs in the form of increased crime and social services? Uncounted economic burden?”
Imaginary Lawyer: “Yes”
IJ: “This can happen without compensation? They can do this without compensation?”
IL: “Yes.”
IJ: “Wow.”
IL: “It’s called legislation, your honor.”
If you want to watch what happened at the SJC yesterday, here is the link (the video is not embeddable, unfortunately).