Fights Deportation of Criminal Alien
In 1990, Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) sued the Immigration and
Naturalization Service for deporting an immigrant guilty of numerous crimes.
The immigrant in question, Samuel Joseph, legally entered the United States
in 1982 from Haiti. Since that time, he compiled an extensive criminal
record that included convictions for assault and battery, breaking and
entering, and armed robbery. The INS initiated deportation hearings against
Joseph in 1983 under a federal law that allows for the deportation of any
legal immigrant who commits a “crime involving moral turpitude.” However,
legal services came to Joseph’s defense. GBLS argued that the Board of
Immigration appeals illegally denied Joseph’s appeal to stay in the country
because they failed to consider his good qualities. A federal appeals court
rejected the argument.
See Joseph v. INS, 909 F.2d 605, (US App. Ct.) 1990
Supports Legalization of Homosexual Families
In a 1992 case before the state supreme court, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute filed an amicus brief supporting the right of unmarried couples to collect unemployment benefits. Considered an important victory by homosexual activists in their campaign to secure legal recognition of same-sex couples, the case involved a heterosexual couple, Kathy Reep and Robert Kurnit, who had been living together for 13 years. When Kurnit relocated his business to a new town, Reep was unable to find employment and sought unemployment benefits from the state. However, the state denied her claim on the grounds that only marital partners who must move to stay with their spouses are eligible for unemployment. However, the state supreme court rejected the state’s position and ruled that unemployment benefits should not be dependent on one’s martial status. Homosexual activists hailed the decision as an important victory in their campaign to legalize same-sex marriages because it recognizes that “the family is a bigger reality than married parents with children.” In a dissenting opinion, Justice J. Nolan said the case represented “another paragraph in the obituary for the concept of a traditional family.”
See Reep v. Dept. of Empl. and Training, 412 Mass. 845,
1992
Forces State to Spend Millions in Day Care for Welfare Recipients
In a setback to Governor William Weld’s efforts to control spending, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute won a court injunction requiring the state to spend millions of dollars in child care for AFDC recipients in job training or education programs. In 1992, the Weld administration, confronted with a shortage of funds, ended $5.9 million in day care payments to women on AFDC who were enrolled in school or job-training programs. The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute immediately won an injunction forcing the state to continue child care funding. Relying upon a heavily-used tactic of legal services lawyers nationwide, MRLI lawyers claimed that a federal law to encourage women to enter job training automatically required the state to also fund their day care expenses.
See Diego Ribadeneira, “ Weld’s Cuts in Child Care Ruled
Illegal,” The Boston Globe, November 21 1992, pg. 1
LSC-Funded Group Advocates a $1.6 Billion Tax increase
In 1990, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute successfully advocated
for a $1.6 billion increase in taxes on a range of business services. That
year, Governor Michael Dukakis approved a 5 percent tax on almost 600 professional
and personal services including radio and TV repair, furniture repair and
automotive work. A broad coalition of citizen tax reform and business groups
challenged the tax increase in the state’s supreme court contending that
taxes on services were unconstitutional. The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
filed a brief supporting the tax increase. MRLI was joined by a liberal
coalition that included the state AFl-CIO, the Massachusetts Teachers Association
and other activists for increased social spending. In a 4-3 decision, the
supreme court ruled in favor of the measure. However, the legislature repealed
the unpopular tax in 1991 leading MLRI to bemoan the $170 million in tax
relief to Massachusetts residents.
See Elsa Arnett, “50 Groups Weigh in on Service Tax,” The Boston
Globe, July 14 1990, pg. 1
Opposes Repeal of Estate Tax on Massachusetts Residents
In 1992, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute advocated against a
repeal of the estate tax even though it would have meant $150 million in
savings for Massachusetts residents. Proponents of the repeal, which included
the Massachusetts Bar Association, complained that the high tax was forcing
residents to flee to other states with more reasonable tax rates.
MLRI, which has a lengthy record of supporting radical increases in social
spending, argued that the money was needed to fund welfare and other social
service programs.
See Cindy Mann, “Call for Estate Tax Repeal Ignores Consequences,”
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, June 1992, pg. 10