Immigration Update: New Decision Bars Bond Hearings for Certain Asylum Seekers

Since the release of our Immigration Principles last year, we have, from time to time, offered updates on significant immigration developments and events. On Tuesday, April 18, US Attorney General William Bar released a decision that revoked the right of certain asylum seekers to ask an immigration judge for release on bond. The ruling is set to go into effect in 90 days and will almost certainly face legal challenge in the meantime. This latest development prompted us to revisit the BBA principles, our work on immigration-related policies and practices, and larger questions about the functioning of our immigration court system – all of which you can read more about below.

Attorney General Barr’s Decision in Matter of M-S

                William Barr’s decision in Matter of M-S represents the first time he has used this power to issue binding precedent on the immigration courts, following the trend started by his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, who selected the case for attorney general review last October. In Matter of M-S, Barr overrules a 2005 decision that guaranteed bond hearings for certain migrants, including some who passed a “credible fear” interview, the first step in an asylum review. Instead, he concludes that a migrant “…who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond.” If this ruling goes into effect, individual asylum seekers who did not enter at a designated port of entry would be able to be released from detention while waiting for their case to be heard by a judge only if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allows for release on parole, a practice that ICE has been using less and less under the current administration. 

                AG Barr has delayed the effective date of the decision for 90 days, so that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can “conduct necessary operational planning,” noting that his decision to overrule the 2005 decision will have “an immediate and significant impact on [DHS] detention operations.” It’s anticipated that the decision could add to the existing overcrowding issues in immigrant detention centers.

                As mentioned, the decision applies only to individuals that have crossed the border without authorization, and not at an official port of entry. The new rule will not apply to families or unaccompanied children, who currently make up a majority of people crossing into the US without papers. Under the terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement years ago, ICE cannot keep immigrant families in detention for prolonged periods and, Matter of M-S does not impact that settlement agreement.

When an individual crosses the border without authorization, they can be deported without a hearing, but if that individual declares that they have a fear of returning to their home country or that they wish to seek asylum, they have a right to an interview with an asylum officer to determine whether the individual has a “credible fear.” If it is determined that “credible fear” does exist, they can formally apply for asylum through a hearing before an immigration judge. The new decision would mean that, unless granted parole at the discretion of ICE, all individuals who crossed without authorization outside the ports of entry would be held for the entire scope of time between the screening interview and the full hearing.

The decision comes on the heels of two relevant federal cases related to immigration court bond hearings. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act did not give an immigrant the right to periodic hearings to determine whether they may be released on bail. Attorney General Barr cited this case as support for his decision in Matter of M-S.

Just a few weeks ago, however, a federal judge ruled that bond hearings for eligible asylum seekers must be held within seven days of passing the screening interview. If implemented, this would have resulted in an influx of new hearings in already-overcrowded immigration courts and likely a large number of releases from detention. The California ruling was delayed for 30 days for appeal, but Barr’s decision in Matter of M-S obviates the judicial ruling by barring bond hearings for all individual asylum seekers not crossing at a port of entry.

BBA Principles and Positions

               As noted above, the BBA’s Immigration Principles have provided a framework through which the BBA approaches immigration-related matters since their adoption by the Council last year. The four principles read:

  • Principle 1: Immigration is a defining feature of the American experience. Immigrants play a critical role in the civic, economic, and cultural life of our city, state, and country.
  • Principle 2: No person’s rights or human dignity should be devalued on the basis of immigration or citizenship status.
  • Principle 3: The constitutional right to due process and equal protection, guaranteed to every person regardless of immigration or citizenship status, must be protected and enforced.
  • Principle 4: Every person should have the full and meaningful ability to exercise their rights and to access justice through the legal system regardless of immigration or citizenship status, level of income, or economic circumstance.

The Working Group’s accompanying report further expounds on each of these four principles. For example, under Principle 2, the report specifically explains that “we join the American Bar Association and others in recognizing that even people who enter the country without authorization should be treated fairly and humanely. For that reason, undocumented immigrants should not be detained while their legal claims to remain in the United States are resolved—at least absent extraordinary circumstances, such as if, for example, the individual in question presents a threat to public safety or a serious flight risk.”

And under Principle 4, the Report gets even more specific, noting, among other things, that “access to a fair immigration process with independent judges” is key to ensuring access to justice and the rights of all those within our borders. This section explains the barriers to justice routinely faced by immigrants and the role and importance of independent immigration courts and judges.

With these principles in mind, we’ve responded to a number of recent proposals and policies. For example, when the administration proposed a policy that would not allow those crossing the border between official ports of entry to claim asylum, we issued a statement expressing concern and reiterating our commitment “to standing up for the rights of immigrants, advocating for the fair and humane treatment of all people present in our country, and upholding the bedrock principles of access to justice and due process for all.” You can read the full statement here

                A few days before responding to the new asylum policy, we had submitted comments in opposition to a proposed federal regulation that would have significantly altered the current policies in place under the Flores Settlement Agreement, which established protections for unaccompanied immigrant children. Those comments specifically note that “the BBA has spoken against the use of prolonged and unnecessary detention in immigration settings for years, calling for detention to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, such as when an individual presents a substantial flight risk or a threat to national security or public safety.” The comments also note that “[i]n those instances when detention must occur, the BBA supports detention in the least restrictive setting possible and has long maintained that there must be policies in place to ensure that detention conditions are humane and that mechanisms exist to ensure proper oversight and accountability.” You can read the full comments here.

                You can read more about other recent BBA immigration-related policies and responses here and here.

The Need for Immigration Court Reform

                With our principles and these past actions in mind, it’s worth focusing in on one particular aspect of the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of M-S, which highlights an unusual, and perhaps oft-forgotten, feature of the current immigration system: immigration courts are under the purview of the Executive Branch via the Department of Justice and immigration judges are career attorneys appointed by the Attorney General. This explains why AG Barr has the authority to issue a decision to bar the use of bail for asylum-seekers that is binding on all immigration court judges.

                Interestingly, at the same time that the Council adopted the Immigration Principles, it also determined that it was appropriate to immediately endorse a policy proposal to restructure the immigration courts under Article 1, similar to existing federal Bankruptcy and Tax Courts. This position builds off years of the BBA speaking about the importance of judicial independence and the dangerous consequences when political pressure is applied to those serving on the bench. It also aligns with our constant support for adequate funding for the judiciary, because we understand that a well-functioning and fully independent judiciary is critical to the fair administration of justice.

The BBA is far from alone in calling for a restructuring of the immigration court system: the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Federal Bar Association, and the American Bar Association (ABA), to name a few, all also endorse moving immigration courts under Article 1 to better ensure proper independence and oversight. The ABA’s full report on the issue explains in detail why such a change makes sense.

An immigration court system that is overseen by the Attorney General is inherently political and doesn’t feature the safeguards guaranteed to other courts. Recent developments have highlighted the shortcomings of this structure. For example, last year the NAIJ filed a grievance asking the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to acknowledge in writing that it will not interfere with the “decisional authority” of judges in the assignment or reassignment of cases. NAIJ President Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor wrote, “The decisional independence of immigration judges is under siege.” And the AILA also recently issued a statement in response to another decision that limits the ability of judges to grant continuances, noting that “until Congress acts, the Attorney General will continue to encroach upon the independence of the courts, forcing judges to order people removed without a fair process.”

Matter of M-S seems also to highlight the value of a restructuring of our immigration courts so that judges are able to make decisions based on the laws in place, without pressure to conform to the priorities and decisions of whoever is in power at the Executive level. We’ll keep you posted as to how you can join us in supporting an immigration court system that is effective, efficient, and independent.

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

Budget Update: Priority Letter Sent to House Ways and Means Chair

Last month, we updated you on the launch of our 2020 (FY20) budget advocacy. As mentioned there, our attention is now focused on the Legislature as the House, and then the Senate, craft their own budgets. Right now, the House Committee on Ways and Means is examining the Governor’s Proposal and gearing up to release its own recommendations, which will be debated and voted on in April.

We communicate our budget priorities at each step of this process, and earlier this month, BBA President Jonathan Albano sent a letter to the newly-appointed Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Aaron Michlewitz, explaining those line-items critical to a well-functioning legal system and providing equal access to justice to residents of the Commonwealth.  

You can read the full letter here.

As usual, we spell out our support for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC), the largest funder of legal services organizations in the Commonwealth and argue for a $5 million increase in funding, or a $26 million total appropriation. For the full overview of why this funding is so important, visit this blog post

Our letter also explains our continued support for adequate funding for the Trial Court, which handles all the cases filed in the Commonwealth’s courts and urges the inclusion of the Trial Court’s requested maintenance-level appropriation and any necessary increases that results from collective-bargaining negotiation. From there, the letter further supports the full funding of the Committee for Public Counsel Services operations up-front, noting the vital role the agency plays in keeping with the right to counsel under our laws and the Constitutions of Massachusetts and the United States. And finally, the letter asks that $5 million go toward community-based residential re-entry services, which would help to ensure lasting recidivism reduction on the heels of last session’s historic criminal justice reforms.  

Visit this post for more details on these budget asks.

After the House debate and vote, it’s on to the Senate and then to a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two. We’ll keep you posted at each step of the way and let you know how you can join us in supporting these critical line-items!

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

BBA Endorses Fix for Alimony-Deductibility Conundrum

This week, the BBA Council endorsed a measure designed to fix a problem dropped in our laps by a recent change in federal tax law.  To get there, though, we’re going to have to work our way through a discussion of alimony, tax deductions, and a little math.  (Or, just skip to the last two paragraphs!)

When Congress undertook a massive overhaul of the federal tax code near the end of 2017, they included a ticking time-bomb for divorce lawyers and their clients—one set to go off at the very end of 2018: Starting in 2019, all newly-ordered alimony would not be deductible from the payor’s gross income (nor attributable to the payee’s) for federal tax purposes.

For divorcing couples, this amounts to the IRS reaching deeper into their collective wallets—or, depending on how you look at it, the end of the federal government partially subsidizing alimony.  That’s because until this year, couples were able to shift that amount of income from the payor to the payee—who quite often, even with alimony included, occupied a lower tax-bracket than the payor, meaning the amount of alimony was taxed less than it otherwise would be.

In one sense, this is logical, since the payor doesn’t truly enjoy the benefit of this income, as it flows through to the payee.  In another sense, it helped somewhat in resolving alimony disputes, because while the payor could be said to have “lost” that amount of income, the loss was reduced by a consequently lower tax burden.

Consider an alimony payment of $10,000 per year, with the payor in the 25% bracket and the payee in the 10% bracket.  The former’s taxes go down by $2500, but the latter’s rise by only $1000.  It’s as if the couple has an extra $1500, thanks to the feds.

Now that’s been wiped away, the federal government gets paid first, and it makes for less money to go around in alimony cases.  But in Massachusetts, in particular, it presents a dilemma, because of the way our statutory alimony guidelines operate.  When alimony reform was enacted in 2011, language was added to say that, for general alimony, a judge should award “30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes”, or the payee’s need—whichever is smaller.

At the time, it was assumed that alimony would remain federally tax-deductible, and the 30-35% range offered a consensus rule of thumb for achieving the desired outcomes (though a judge can always deviate from that guideline “upon written findings that deviation is necessary”).  Now, however, with the new tax law shifting the burden of paying taxes on alimony from the payee to the payor, the 30-35% rule is producing skewed, unintended results—yet judges are left without clear guidance on what to do about it.

Enter Marc Bello, a forensic accountant who specializes in marital disputes.  He explored hundreds of scenarios, with differing levels of payor and payee incomes, to calculate the after-tax impact of the federal change on Massachusetts couples.  What he found was that (a) under the new regimen, payees were ending up with more take-away income than before—sometimes as much as the payor; but (b) this problem could be solved by adding a new percentage guideline for non-deductible alimony.

(This would be as good a time as any to point out that alimony remains deductible by payors for Massachusetts state-tax purposes.  And that alimony payments made pursuant to pre-2019 orders remain federally deductible.)

Marc concluded that in virtually all situations, applying a rule that alimony should equal 23-28% of the difference in the parties’ incomes (when alimony is not deductible) leads to the same after-tax outcome as the current 30-35% rule does (when alimony is deductible).  After his presentation to the BBA’s Family Law Section, they voted to endorse a change in the percentage guidelines to reflect his findings.

Some in the legal-services community expressed concern that their clients might be negatively affected, but after Marc delved further into the low-income scenarios behind his research, our Delivery of Legal Services was satisfied that the proposal would effectively maintain the status quo even in such cases.  They voted to endorse specifically the 23-28% range, out of fear that if the new figures were any lower, they could then begin to harm low-income payees.

After presentations to our Executive Committee and Council this month by Family Law Section co-chairs Lisa Wilson of Wilson, Marino & Bonnevie, P.C., and David Friedman of Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster, the Council voted to support the 23-28% guideline for non-deductible alimony, which would sit alongside the existing 30-35% guideline for deductible alimony.

This proposal has also won the endorsement of the Massachusetts Bar Association, and the Women’s Bar Association, and we hope that this unified front will help us convince the Legislature of the urgency of the issue.  We will next seek a sponsor to file legislation and advocate for its timely enactment.

—Michael Avitzur
Government Relations Director
Boston Bar Association

Suffolk County DA Rachael Rollins Speaks at the BBA

We were pleased to welcome the new Suffolk County District Attorney to 16 Beacon Street last week, to hear about her formative experiences, her plans for the office, and her take on hiring and management.

Fresh off her historic election last fall, and barely two months into the job, DA Rachael Rollins visited the BBA on March 11 and took questions from Cat Ham, of the Suffolk DA’s Homicide Unit and co-chair of the BBA’s Criminal Law section, and Kate Cook from Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., as well as from audience members.

After earning a lacrosse scholarship at UMass-Amherst—and then engaging in a legal battle to save the program and other women’s sports at the school by threatening to bring a Title IX discrimination lawsuit—DA Rollins entered law school with a plan to pursue a career in sports law, specifically to become the first female Executive Director of to the National Basketball Players Association. She credited the co-op program at Northeastern Law School with helping her learn more about the field and gain valuable experience. While at NUSL, she interned at the NBPA and with the Boston Celtics After earning an LL.M. at Georgetown, she ultimately landed at the National Labor Relations Board in Boston before joining the firm then known as Bingham McCutchen (now Morgan Lewis). She said that, at Bingham, her work with former Suffolk DA Ralph Martin, the first African-American to hold that post, and her selection to participate in a District Attorney rotation in Plymouth County steered her toward criminal law.

What drove her to make the run for DA in 2018 was her anguish at watching as black and brown men were shot by police across the country, with no transparency about charging decisions (or lack thereof). That was also her motivation for announcing, the same day as her BBA appearance, the creation of a Discharge-Integrity Team, to help her exercise her exclusive authority on how to proceed in cases of police-involved shootings. Rollins is also taking pains to keep the deceased’s family apprised of the investigation’s findings.

Perhaps the policy she’s most associated with, in the public’s mind, is her list of 15 offenses for which she’s pledged to consider alternatives to prosecution.  DA Rollins said she’d given much consideration during the campaign to the development of the list after discussions with law enforcement, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges about the types of cases where a different kind of accountability than incarceration is called for. Her plan is to pause and do some “quality review” before putting people on what she described as a “conveyor belt” to jail, because these are overwhelmingly defendants dealing with poverty, mental-health concerns or substance use disorder in those instances. One part of the more thoughtful approach she’s aiming for is to make social services more available. But she promised to review the policy and go where the data lead, after consulting the public.

The DA intends to be closely involved with the communities she serves. In part because she’s seen it first-hand in her own immediate family, she understands that the justice system needs to better handle the cycle of treatment and relapse on the path to recovery from addiction. That means more case workers, social workers, and clinicians—an effort, she notes, that should’ve begun in the 1980s when it was mostly Black and Brown people struggling with addiction. She believes that since she has the power to send someone away, she needs to visit the prisons and jails she’s sending them to. And her ADAs should understand their role, too: If you want to work for her, she wants to know what drives you to be a prosecutor.

Asked about her greatest challenge so far as DA, Rollins cited the sprawling bureaucracy she now heads up, and the extreme pace of work—beyond anything else in the Commonwealth, by her measure. There’s simply very little time to dwell on each of the individual decisions required in the thousands of cases her office handles. And yet, working alongside similarly-situated victims who may have different ideas of justice, on the same fact patterns, she’s learned there’s no one “right” answer or approach; each case must be addressed on its own merits.

“We work at a very fast pace and handle incredibly complicated and violent matters,” Rollins said. “Not everyone can handle this pace of work and not everyone is cut out for it. I am incredibly proud of my staff, who show up every day, work hard, and give their best to the Commonwealth.”

Nevertheless, as a survivor of cancer, this job is not the toughest thing she’s faced. Her hard-earned strength and resilience are just what the job calls for, in her estimation. As she told the BBA audience, a DA needs to be decisive and instill confidence in employees, while still demanding accountability. Rollins says she knows what she doesn’t know, and she’s not afraid to defer to expert staffers.

Finally, responding to a question from Kate Cook, DA Rollins offered this advice to the new lawyers and law students in the room: First, be great at what you do and how you do it. At the DA’s Office, she seeks out people who are driven, hard-working, and ambitious—qualities more important to the ADA job than their credentials. “Be your own advocate,” she advised, and know when it is time to move on.

—Michael Avitzur
Government Relations Director
Boston Bar Association

BBA Endorses Statement of Opinion Practices

Earlier this week, the BBA Council approved a Business Transactions Section request to endorse a “Statement of Opinion Practices” that would establish a national basis for the preparation and understanding of third-party legal opinion letters, or “closing opinions.” Keep reading to learn more about the BBA’s past work on closing opinions and this latest development.

                In the late 1990s, the BBA’s former Business Law Section had a “Legal Opinions Committee” that worked on a range of issues related to the issuance and substance of closing opinions, which are delivered at the closing of a business transaction by counsel for one party to another party in order to satisfy a condition to the opinion recipient’s obligation to close. Specifically, between 1998 and 2005, the Committee worked to produce a streamlined form of opinion, building off of the ABA Legal Opinion Principles. The BBA Council adopted the Committee’s proposal and it eventually became a national model. You can read more about this in a 2005 Business Lawyer article drafted by Stanley Keller and Donald Glazer, who coordinated the preparation of the BBA’s Streamlined Form.

                Additionally, in 2007, the BBA Council joined a number of other bar associations across the country in endorsing a “Statement on the Role of Customary Practice in the Preparation and Understanding of Third-Party Legal Opinions.” This proposal supported the use of customary practice in closing opinions as it permits an opinion giver and recipient to have shared understandings of an opinion without having to state them in the opinion, removing the need for burdensome lists of diligence procedures, definitions, exceptions, and assumptions where customary practice offers this content.

                Now, more than a decade later, we are pleased to continue our efforts and leadership in this space, this time under the guidance of our Business Transactions Section, which grew out of the old Business Law Section and is currently co-chaired by Marc Mantell of Mintz Levin and Gitte Blanchett of Morgan Lewis. The Section Steering Committee considered the latest project produced by the Legal Opinions Committee of the American Bar Association’s Business Law Section and the Working Group on Legal Opinions Foundation to formulate a Statement of Opinion Practices, which would establish an updated national basis for the preparation and understanding of closing opinions. The project also included a document called the “Core Opinion Principles,” designed for use by those who want a separate document they can incorporate by reference or attach to a closing opinion.

                After review and discussion, the Steering Committee voted to seek BBA endorsement of the proposal. Stanley Keller of Locke Lord, a key leader in the previous BBA closing opinion efforts, joined Section co-chair Marc Mantell in presenting the proposal to the BBA Council, explaining the value of having a national basis for these opinions as well as the importance of gaining broad support by entities like the BBA. By endorsing the proposal, the BBA joined a large number of other interested groups, including the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Tribar Opinion Committee, and the Business Law Sections of the Tennessee Bar Association, Virginia Bar Association, State Bar of Texas, and the Florida Bar to name a few.

                We anticipate that the Statement and Core Opinion Principles will be published inThe Business Lawyer soon, and we look forward to being kept apprised by our Business Transactions about the impact this resource is having on the practice.  

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

State House Update: BBA Submits Testimony in Support of Conversion Therapy Ban

Last month, we updated you on our 2019 – 20 legislative priorities, including continued support for a ban on the use of “conversion therapy” on minors, first endorsed by the BBA in 2015. This very issue was the topic of one of the first committee hearings of the legislative session. Keep reading to learn more about the hearing and why Massachusetts should pass Rep. Kay Khan’s H. 140, An Act Relative  to Abusive Practices to Change Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Minors.

On Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities convened a hearing to take up legislation banning the use of “conversion therapy” practices on minors by licensed health professionals in the Commonwealth. The hearing room was packed and included testimony from many legislators as well as advocates and experts, including Arlene Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, Ben Klein of GLAD, Dr. Carole Allen of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Kate Thompson of Boston Children’s Hospital also explained why this legislation is so important.

The BBA is proud to join these voices by submitting written testimony in support of H.140. You can read the full testimony here

The testimony, submitted by BBA Family Law Section member Elizabeth Roberts of Roberts & Sauer LLP, explains that the legislation offers necessary legal protection for minors from a practice that medical and child welfare experts agree does not align with current scientific understandings of sexual orientation and gender identity and is not only ineffective but downright unsafe. Typically, the use of this therapy occurs in the context of familial rejecting behaviors and attitudes, and, no matter the parents’ intentions in seeking this “treatment”, will be read by the youth as a rejection of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity—that is to say, a repudiation of who they are as human beings. Many studies have shown that LGBTQ minors who face this type of rejection are at a much higher risk of negative health and social outcomes, including higher rates of depression, substance use, suicide attempts, homelessness and entrance into the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

Under the bill, adults would still be free to choose conversion therapy, no matter how ill-advised, for themselves. But given the substantial likelihood of serious psychological and social harm to minors who are subjected to conversion therapy, it is essential that they are protected from the imposition of this misguided treatment at the direction of their parents or guardians.

Our testimony additionally focuses on the legal aspects of the legislation, pointing out that First Amendment challenges to similar laws have consistently been dismissed in other jurisdictions and the bans have been upheld as valid exercises of the state’s power. For example, in Pickup v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit upheld a law prohibiting the use of conversion therapy on minors because “[p]ursuant to its police power, California has authority to regulate licensed mental health providers’ administration of therapies that the legislature has deemed harmful.” (740 F.3d 1208,1229 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2871 (2014), and cert. denied sub nom. Welch v. Brown, 134 S. Ct. 2881 (2014)). The court found the bill did not regulate protected speech but rather protected vulnerable young people from treatments deemed ineffective and unsafe by the overwhelming consensus of medical and child welfare experts. In 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review the law after the court rejected the claim that the legislation infringed on free speech. Additionally, in 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging the California law on the grounds that it impinged upon the free exercise of religion.

Reaching a similar outcome through a different approach, the Third Circuit upheld the New Jersey ban in King v. Christie (767 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2014)). While the Court viewed the law as a regulation on speech, it found this to be a permissible restriction because it easily passed review under the intermediate scrutiny standard that applies to restrictions on “professional speech.” Ultimately the court found it reasonable to conclude a minor client might suffer harm from the use of the practice, given the substantial evidence of the likelihood of such harm presented to state legislators.

Thus, the existing case law makes it clear H.140 is a valid exercise of the Commonwealth’s power to regulate medical professionals and protect public health and safety. And the youth and families of Massachusetts deserve assurance that minors will not face harmful or abusive treatment when seeking assistance from licensed professionals. The BBA joins a long list of medical and professional organizations in opposing the use of these practices, including the American Bar Association and the American Psychological AssociationAmerican Medical AssociationAmerican Academy of PediatricsNational Association of Social Workers, and the Pan American Health Organization. To date, fifteen states, six more since the hearing last session, have passed legislation barring the use of conversion therapy on minors, and it seems now is the time Massachusetts become the sixteenth state to enact these protections.

Following the hearing, H.140 was reported favorably by the Committee, and we will keep you posted on ways you can join us in making sure these protections are enacted this session!

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

BBA 2019-20 Legislative Priorities

A new legislative session has begun at the State House for 2019-20—officially the 191st for the General Court of Massachusetts—and with it come about six thousand bills already filed by the 40 elected Senators and 160 elected Representatives from across the Commonwealth.  Let’s take a look at legislation the BBA is supporting, starting with three local versions of model laws drafted by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC).

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

Although there are certainly instances of Massachusetts leading the nation in advancing public policy, here’s a case of us actually being the only state yet to have enacted a law, some 20+ years after the ULC promulgated it.  The UCCJEA is effectively a compact that requires participating states (literally all of the others) to respect pre-existing custody orders from another state when a custodial parent moves there, with limited exceptions. 

The main idea is to discourage forum-shipping, promote certainty and quick resolutions, and save costs, by preserving the original state’s exclusive jurisdiction.  The Massachusetts version has been modified to address concerns about its potential impact on parents trying to escape domestic violence and has widespread support from the family-law bar.  The bill, filed by Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem, has twice now passed the State Senate but without action in the House.  This session, Rep. Sheila Harrington has also filed it.

(Read more:

The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA)

Trusts-and-estates practitioners have faced increasing uncertainty in recent years regarding how to handle decedents’ digital assets.  That is, what should happen to a person’s e-mail accounts, social-media profiles, on-line banking portfolios, and so forth, after they die—and how should individuals plan for that while still alive?  It is currently unclear in Massachusetts and elsewhere how to resolve disputes over access to such assets between the Internet provider and the decedents’ estate.  And the issue only grows in importance as our virtual lives expand in scope and content—and as those digital assets grow in value.

RUFADAA aims to provide that much-needed clarity by establishing protocols to govern access.  It offers an account-holder the ability to specify, while living, what is to happen after their death, and provides fiduciaries with a means to pursue content access in keeping with an estate plan, while also setting up protocols for cases of intestacy or an absence of instruction from the decedent.  Unlike previously-proposed bills, RUFADAA would extend to all digital content and to all types of fiduciaries.  It has now been adopted in 41 other states.  Here, RUFADAA legislation has been filed by both Sen. Barry Finegold and Rep. Jay Livingstone.

(Read more:

Uniform Trust Decanting Act (UTDA)

Also spearheaded by our Trusts & Estates Section is the BBA’s endorsement of the UTDA, which—like RUFADAA—would impose a legal framework in an area that currently lacks one: decanting, which involves the fiduciary exercise of broad discretionary powers of distribution to create new trusts for one or more beneficiaries of an existing trust.  Though the SJC has recognized the potential validity of such actions under common law (in a case in which the BBA submitted an amicus brief), neither the Court nor the Legislature has spelled out what can and can’t be done, and under what circumstances.

Decanting can be a useful strategy for changing the outdated terms of an otherwise-irrevocable trust—for example, to provide for a beneficiary who becomes disabled after the settlor executes the original trust—but it can also defeat a settlor’s intent, so rules are needed to prevent abuse.  UTDA, which would create those rules, offers national uniformity, but it’s especially important in the half of the US (including Massachusetts) that now has no decanting statute whatsoever.  Sen. Creem has filed a bill to adopt UTDA here.

(Read more:

Conversion therapy

We continue to support a bill that came tantalizingly close to being sent to the Governor at the end of the last legislative session in July: Rep. Kay Khan’s legislation would ban the use of “conversion therapy” on minors by licensed health care professionals.  The practice goes by different names, but it represents an ostensible attempt to alter a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity.  A ban would thus protect minors from a practice that medical and child-welfare experts agree does not align with current scientific understanding and is not only ineffective and misleading but downright unsafe.

(Read more:

Other legislation we are advocating for includes bills…:

  • Offering alternative, neutral terms—which don’t carry the stigma of, for example, “custody” and “visitation”—that could be used by parents in custody disputes, and thereby promote settlement and reduce conflict and ill will.
  • Updating and modernizing the law on spousal elective share (which allows a surviving spouse to take more from a decedent’s estate, under certain circumstances, than the will provides), as the SJC has repeatedly asked the Legislature to do (most recently in January).
  • Redrafting Massachusetts law on operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, to make the notoriously confusing Chapter 90 of the General Laws easier to understand—but without making any substantive changes.
  • Addressing a discrepancy in the treatment of adopted children in trusts that has resulted from confusing changes in the relevant statute over time.
  • Fixing a glitch in the estate tax that results in disparate, unfair treatment, for purposes of tax basis, of property inherited from Massachusetts residents who died in 2010.
  • Making technical corrections to the state’s Trademarks Act.
  • Protecting the interests of property owners from “title piracy,” whereby unrelated third parties scour old records in search of technical defects, in order to find potential claims against current innocent landowners.

We appreciate all of the above sponsors for carrying these measures.  We will continue to advocate for them throughout the current session and will of course keep you updated.  (To learn more about our process for considering new policy proposals, including how you can propose that we do so take a new position, read:

In addition to the specific bills listed above, we are guided by principles, guidelines, and recommendations that have been endorsed by the BBA Council to govern our positions in a variety of areas, such as criminal-justice reform, immigration, wiretap law, and shared parenting.

Much of our work in the State House, however, is focused on one annual bill in particular: the state budget.  As always, we are strong supporters of adequate funding for the judiciary, for civil legal aid, and for representation for indigent defendants.  Last year, we also extended our support to a new program for re-entry services for people coming out of incarceration.  (Read more:

Finally, our engagement with public policy extends beyond legislative lobbying: We frequently comment on proposed changes to court rules, for instance, and file amicus briefs on matters related to the practice of law or the administration of justice.  Though are efforts are mostly focused on the state level, we do take positions on Congressional legislation—including a recent effort [paywall] to prevent forum-shopping in bankruptcy cases—and, under the auspices of the ABA, we make the trek to DC each spring with the BBA President and President-Elect to talk to members of the Massachusetts delegation about BBA/ABA priorities at the federal level.  With two newly-elected Representatives to visit for the first time, we are especially looking forward to this year’s visit and will report back in April.

—Michael Avitzur
Government Relations Director
Boston Bar Association

Criminal Law Section Submits Comments on Proposed Conditional Guilty Plea Rule

Our Section Steering Committees frequently take the opportunity to comment on proposed new and amended rules and court orders. Members are able to offer important insights from the viewpoint of their particular practice area and expertise, and the courts have a strong history of listening and responding to the concerns and suggestions of the Sections, and their insights are often reflected in the final iterations of the rules.

Earlier this month, the Criminal Law Section, one of the BBA’s most frequent participants in the comment process, submitted comments in response to a proposed amendment to Rule 12 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure. The amendment would add a new section allowing the defendant, if the prosecutor agrees, to plead guilty while reserving the right to appeal any ruling that would, if reversed, render the Commonwealth’s case not viable. The proposal was drafted in response to the Supreme Judicial Court decision in Commonwealth v. Gomez, 430 Mass. 240 (2018), which authorized the use of conditional guilty pleas in Massachusetts.

The comments reflect diverse opinions from both prosecutors and defense attorneys, offering suggestions and feedback on those sections related to prosecutorial consent, the “not viable” requirement, and single-charge conditional pleas sentencing issues.  A special thanks goes out to Criminal Law Section Steering Committee members David Rangaviz, of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, and Kaushal Rana of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, for taking the lead in drafting these comments and presenting them to the Executive Committee.

                You can read the full Criminal Law Section comments here. We’ll be keeping an eye out for the final rule, and in the meantime, don’t miss the Criminal Law Section’s upcoming program on Conditional Guilty Pleas on March 20 at the BBA!  

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

Immigration Update: ABA Adopts BBA-Endorsed Resolution and Other Border Developments

Since the release of the BBA Principles and Report last September, we’ve been using the analysis and framework created by the Immigration Working Group to weigh in on key immigration developments. For example, over the last few months, we submitted comments in opposition to proposals that would radically change the public charge rule and the processing and treatment of immigration youth.  

Below, we highlight the most recent immigration-related position adopted by the BBA Council and offer a few updates on other important developments, including the Border Wall and the family separation suit filed last fall by a collection of Boston-area immigration and civil rights attorneys.

ABA Resolution on Zero-Tolerance Policy and Operation Streamline

Last month, we reported that the BBA endorsed a proposed ABA resolution related to federal immigration policies and practices to be taken up by the ABA House of Delegates at their mid-year meeting. We’re thrilled to report that the resolution was indeed adopted  by the ABA as proposed and can be found here.

The Resolution  and accompanying report were drafted in response to concerns over the US Attorney General’s “zero-tolerance policy,” which, as the accompanying report states, “mandates the prosecution for illegal entry of everyone apprehended at our southern borders between ports of entry, including asylum seekers,” and “Operation Streamline,” under which “en masse hearings combine the initial appearance, preliminary hearing, plea, and sentencing into one single proceeding that can last less than one minute per defendant.”  The report accompanying the proposed resolution explains why the ABA Commission on Immigration and other groups, like the BBA, are so concerned about this policy and practice , focusing specifically on the “significant due process” and public safety issues. 

For a full overview of the resolution and the BBA’s endorsement, visit this blog post.

Our ABA Delegates, both former BBA Presidents, Mary Ryan, of Nutter McClennen & Fish, and  Lisa Arrowood, of  Arrowood LLP, were able to pass along the BBA’s support in advance of the vote. Mary Ryan reported on the great testimony presented in support of the Resolution by those who had visited the border and told personal stories of how the scenes of mass prosecutions impacted them.  

Other Updates

National Emergency and the Border Wall

The federal government shutdown, which occurred largely due to a disagreement over funding for a wall at the border, had major impacts on individuals and communities across the country. These impacts were especially pronounced for immigration courts, where over 85,000 immigrants had their hearings canceled, many after already waiting for years for the court date. It will likely take years for the courts, already facing a deep backlog, to make up the missed hearings, but the shutdown has now ended and attention has turned to the President’s declaration of a national emergency at the border in order to access funding to build the wall.

The declaration has raised significant questions about executive power and national emergencies. Director of Government Relations Michael Avitzur previously shared an article on LawFare Blog by Margaret Taylor, and it’s worth a reread for the statutory argument analysis.

Soon after the declaration, 16 states filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, arguing that the President does not have the power to divert fund as Congress controls that spending and pointing to Trump’s own words to show there is not an actual emergency. Attorney General Maura Healey stated that she is “working to determine the full scope and impact on Massachusetts so that, if and when we challenge the administration’s actions, we bring the strongest possible case.”

Amended Complaint Filed in Family Separation Suit

In September, Lawyers for Civil Rights, and attorneys from Todd & Weld, Nixon Peabody, Demissie & Church, and the Law Offices of Jeff Goldman, filed a first-of-its kind federal class action lawsuit seeking damages against Trump Administration officials for the family separation at the border. The suit, brought on behalf of two families and similarly-situated children, seeks damages based on violations of the constitutional and civil rights of immigrant children, including the violation of due process and violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The damages sought include the creation of a mental health fund to pay for therapy and treatment necessitated from the separations.

At the end of last month, the two families filed an amended complaint that adds a count alleging violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unlawful seizure. On January 9, the government had filed a motion to dismiss but will now file a second motion to dismiss in response to the amended complaint. Hearings in the case have not yet been scheduled.

Continue to watch this space for more updates on how these matters develop on the state and national level. If you’re interested in learning more or becoming involved in the BBA’s immigration-related work, email

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

BBA Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Advocacy Begins

It’s that time of year when our budget priorities become a focus here in the Government Relations Department of the Boston Bar Association (BBA). We previewed our budget campaign before Walk to the Hill earlier this year, and last month Governor Charlie Baker released his Budget for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20). You can read our letter to the Governor here.  Now, our attention turns the Legislature as the House, and then the Senate pass their own budget proposals in the coming months.

For a refresher on where things ended up for the FY19 budget, visit this blog post, and keep reading to learn more about our funding asks for FY20.

Walk to the Hill Recap and MLAC Budget Ask

Before getting into the budget details, we first want to thank all those who made Walk to the Hill 2019 such a success!  On January 24, hundreds of attorneys braved the rain and rallied at the State House to advocate for an increase in funding from the Mass Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC), the largest funder of legal services programs in the Commonwealth. This year marked the 20th anniversary of the Walk, annually hosted by the Equal Justice Coalition, an organization formed in partnership with the BBA, the Massachusetts Bar Association, and MLAC.

Before heading over to the State House, law students, in-house counsel, and solo and small firm practitioners gathered at the BBA for a breakfast and refresher on speaking about legal aid with legislators. Once across the street, attendees heard moving remarks from President Jon Albano,  SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants, EJC Chair Louis Tompros, MLAC Executive Director Lynne Parker, MBA President Chris Kenney, a client who received legal assistance from GBLS, and GBLS Executive Director Jacquelynne Bowman.  As usual, many of the speeches relied on the BBA’s own Investing in Justice report to highlight that funding for legal is not only the right thing to do, but a sound investment that pays for itself, and then some. (ICYMI: that same report just got a mention in the Boston Globe in a piece related to the provision of counsel in eviction proceedings). After the speeches, attorneys spread out across the State House, including Jon Albano and MetroWest Legal Services Executive Director and BBA Council member Betsy Soulé, who had productive meetings with Representative Alice Peisch and Senator Michael Barrett, both long-time supporters of MLAC funding.  Read the full Walk to the Hill recap by the EJC here.

            Walk to the Hill marks the beginning of a months-long budget campaign for civil legal aid, and this year we are asking for a $5 million increase in funding in the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) budget, for a $26 million total appropriation. The day before the Walk, the Governor released his own budget, which offered level-funding for MLAC. Now we turn our attention to the Legislature, where we’ll be urging the House and the Senate to include the full $26 million request.

Trial Court

As usual, we’ll also be urging for adequate funding for the Trial Court appropriation. The Trial Court, which is made up of seven court departments, handles the vast majority of cases in the Commonwealth, and as a result, acts as the primary point of contact for nearly all Massachusetts residents who are seeking resolution of a legal issue. In order to ensure the efficient operation of the judicial system and fair, impartial, and equal access to justice, it is essential that the Trial Court receive adequate funding.

Over the last few years, the Trial Court has made great strides in finding ways to work smarter and leverage technological advancements to get more done with less money and less staff. Their current request for maintenance funding of 6,359 positions represents a decrease of 161 positions below the FY16 staffing level and a 19% reduction since FY02.

Despite these efforts, and even with steady increases in funding from the Governor and Legislature, the Trial Court still has a major need for increased funding to sustain and continue the progress made in recent years. In addition, the Trial Court’s facilities are in dire need of security system upgrades, which are necessary to preserve the safety of court employees, users, and the general public, ensuring the Trial Court remains effective and accessible for all residents of the Commonwealth. That’s why we are urging that the FY20 budget include the Trial Court’s full requested maintenance-level appropriation.  


This year, we will also be urging, as usual, for adequate and timely funding for the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS),which plays a vital role in our judicial system, providing representation to indigent persons in criminal and civil cases and administrative proceedings, in keeping with the right to counsel under our laws and the Constitution. Adequate funding would help CPCS to increase salaries of their staff attorneys, who are woefully underpaid in comparison to their colleagues in other states, and to attorneys of similar experience in the executive branch. This is not merely our conclusion but that of the Commission to Study Compensation of Assistant District Attorneys and Staff Attorneys of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. The BBA supports the Commission’s 2015 recommendation that minimum salaries for these attorneys be increased, over time, to match the corresponding minimums for executive branch attorneys, and increased funding for CPCS would be a significant and beneficial step in that direction.

CPCS funding in the FY20budget is especially critical because the state faces what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court has called a “constitutional emergency.” In cases where a child is facing removal from parental custody, the parents and children have a right to representation at a hearing within 72 hours. There are too few attorneys taking up these cases, and as a result, children and parents, especially in the western parts of the state, are being denied their constitutional right to a timely hearing. Adequate funding would allow CPCS to increase compensation for bar advocates, or private attorneys who defend indigent clients, which would help to find attorneys willing to take on these tough cases and protect the constitutional rights of these parents and children.

Residential Re-Entry Services

As you’ll recall, last year we added an additional item to our budget priorities: funding for residential re-entry services to reduce recidivism. Massachusetts recently took a huge leap towards ensuring our criminal justice system is more fair and effective. While there is much to celebrate, there is still much to be done. Each year thousands of Massachusetts residents are released from jails and prisons, many with little or no resources to help in securing essential needs like employment and housing.

Because of this, the BBA recommended in its report, No Time to Wait, that the state “ensure adequate funding and accountability for anti-recidivism efforts.” One step towards this is through line-item 0339 -1011, which would offer funding for community-based residential reentry services that provide housing, workforce development, and case management for recently released individuals, fostering connections and stability for those re-entering the community. This year, we are once again supporting a $5 million appropriation for these important services.

As our budget advocacy gets underway, there will be plenty of opportunities beyond Walk to the Hill for you to join us in advocating for our priorities, which will help to ensure access to justice for all residents of the Commonwealth and an efficient and effective judicial system. Watch for e-alerts coming your way, asking you to reach out (again) to your elected officials at key points in the process during budget season! In the meantime, you can learn about the state budget process by listening to this podcast focused on civil legal aid in particular, and about the federal budget and budget advocacy at that level from our Federal Budget Process 101 podcast.

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association