City of Boston v. Richard L. Anderson

Background

The city of Boston, its mayor, and several elected city officials asked a Justice to pause a state-court judgment entered October 4, 1978. That judgment had barred the city from spending municipal money to support a statewide referendum on the November 1978 ballot. The referendum would let the Legislature replace the current 100% real-property valuation system with up to four different property-use classes taxed differently. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied on state law, chapter 55, to enjoin such municipal spending.

Reasoning

The Justice weighed who would suffer irreparable harm and whether the national Court would likely hear the case. He noted a recent ruling that private corporations may spend money on referendum advocacy, so corporate opponents could still fund opposition. The state argued the rule protects dissenting taxpayers from being forced to pay for advocacy they oppose. The Justice concluded the balance of harms favored the city and that at least four Justices would likely vote to review the constitutional question. He therefore paused the state-court ban while the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case.

Real world impact

The pause lets Boston spend public funds to communicate its support for the property-tax proposal while the Supreme Court considers the matter. This is a temporary administrative decision, not a final ruling on whether municipal spending is constitutional. Municipalities, taxpayers, and campaign opponents may be affected during the pause, and a later Supreme Court decision could change the result. Legal arguments will continue in court.