Cases scheduled to be heard in May

Listen to this article

Following is a list of the cases scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Judicial Court in May. The summaries of the issues presented in the cases have been prepared by Lawyers Weekly. The SJC, in cooperation with Suffolk University Law School, provides live and archived webcasts of its arguments at www.suffolk.edu/sjc.

MONDAY, MAY 4

Commonwealth v. KalshiEX LLC
SJC-13906

At issue is whether the Superior Court erred in allowing the commonwealth’s motion for a preliminary injunction, including whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Massachusetts laws regulating sports wagering as applied to the sports-related contracts offered on the defendant’s platform.

Frances S. Cohen, M. Patrick Moore Jr., Jared Rinehimer, Louisa E. Gibbs, Gerard Cedrone, Alda Chan and Joshua Edlin, for the commonwealth
Kristyn M. DeFilipp, Jack Smith, Beth Neitzel, Caroline E. Holliday, Thaddeus Heuer, Andrew L. Porter, Davis Campbell, Grant R. Mainland, Joshua B. Sterling, Nicole D. Valente, Samantha K. Ilagan and William E. Havemann, for the defendant-appellant

Jackson, et al. v. Campbell, et al.
SJC-13904

The issue to be decided is whether the attorney general properly certified Initiative Petition No. 25-12, “An Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement All-Party State Primaries.”

Andrew London, Thaddeus Heuer and Anjika Pai, for the plaintiffs-appellants
Anne Sterman for the defendants-appellees

Finfer, et al. v. Campbell, et al.
SJC-13885

At issue is whether the summary prepared by the attorney general for Initiative Petition 25-18, “Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Reducing the State Personal Income Tax,” complies with the requirements of Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Lisa C. Goodheart and Srish Khakurel, for the plaintiffs-appellants
Anne Sterman, Grace Gohlke and Michelle Tassinari, for the defendants-appellees

In Re: Joseph, Shelley M.
OE-0157

The appeal involves a judge’s challenge to a report and recommendations of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Howard V. Neff III and Judith Fabricant, for the Commission on Judicial Conduct
Michael B. Keating, Elizabeth N. Mulvey and Thomas M. Hoopes, for Shelley Joseph

Pineau, et al. v. Campbell, et al.
SJC-13927

The issue is whether the attorney general properly certified Initiative Petition No. 25-10, “Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Regulating Marijuana.”

Kyle Dutch, Adam D. Fine and Timothy D. Swain, for the plaintiffs-appellants
Anne Sterman and Aaron Macris, for the defendants-appellees

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6

DiZoglio, et al. v. Mariano, et al.
SJC-13921

The SJC justices are soliciting amicus briefs on the following issue: “Whether this court should allow the motion of the Attorney General to strike the complaint filed by the State Auditor without the authorization of the Attorney General pursuant to G.L.c. 12, §3; including, whether the Attorney General has acted within her authority under G.L.c. 12, §3, where she has yet to render a decision on the State Auditor’s request for the appointment of counsel to represent her in litigation to enforce document requests made on the State Legislature in connection with an audit under G.L.c. 11, §12, or whether the Attorney General has exceeded her authority by acting arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally, or scandalously. See Secretary for Administration & Finance v. Attorney General, 367 Mass. 154, 159 n.4, 165 (1975).”

Michael K. Leung-Tat and Shannon Liss-Riordan, for the plaintiff-appellee
Anne Sterman for the defendant-appellant

Fitzmaurice, et al. v. City of Quincy, et al.
SJC-13877

The issues are: (1) whether the installation of two statues of Catholic saints outside the city of Quincy’s public safety building violates art. 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) whether that question should be evaluated pursuant to the framework set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), or whether a different framework should apply.

Suzanne Schlossberg, Jessie J. Rossman, Rachel E. Davidson, Alexandra Arnold, Daniel Mach, Heather L. Weaver, Jenny Samuels, Kyle J. Steinberg, Patrick C. Elliott and Rebecca S. Markert, for the plaintiffs-appellees
Robert Thompson, Andrea R. Butler, Joseph C. Davis, Eric C. Rassbach, Caleb H. Angell, James S. Timmins and Laura Wolk Slavis, for the defendants-appellants

Cella, et al. v. Campbell, et al.
SJC-13893

At issue is whether the attorney general properly certified Initiative Petition No. 25-21, “An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases,” and whether her summary thereof complied with the requirements of article 48.

Edmund P. Daley III, Elissa Flynn-Poppey and Kaitlin Dunn Martin, for the plaintiffs-appellants
Phoebe Fischer-Groban for the defendants-appellees

FRIDAY, MAY 8

Commonwealth v. Holbrook
SJC-13776

The defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that the prosecutor failed to disclose specifically requested exculpatory evidence.

Carolyn A. Burbine for the commonwealth
Brian J. Kelly for the defendant-appellant

Commonwealth v. Ramos
SJC-12678

The defendant argues that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence that the victim was the first aggressor; (2) the lack of a jury instruction on the theory of voluntary manslaughter by sudden combat resulted in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (3) his conviction should be reduced from first-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Travis H. Lynch, Katherine E. McMahon and Lee Baker, for the commonwealth
Michael Tumposky and Andrew Courossi, for the defendant-appellant