New Hampshire brings income tax dispute to Supreme Court
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Massachusetts from collecting income tax from roughly 80,000 New Hampshire residents who are employed by Massachusetts companies but have been working from home during the coronavirus pandemic.
"Massachusetts cannot balance its budget on the backs of our citizens, punish our workers for making the decision to work from home and keep themselves and their families and those around them safe," New Hampshire Gov. Chris
Sununu said at a news conference. "New Hampshire has no choice but to seek relief in our nation's highest court. We're going to fight this unconstitutional attempt to tax our citizens every step of the way and we are going to win."
Under a temporary rule enacted by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, residents of other states who were working in Massachusetts before the pandemic remain subject to Massachusetts' 5.05% income tax while they work from home. While the regulation will expire Dec. 31 or 90 days after the coronavirus state of emergency in Massachusetts is lifted, New Hampshire officials argue it represents a permanent shift in underlying policy and amounts to an "aggressive attempt to impose Massachusetts income tax" beyond its borders. The lack of an income tax in New Hampshire is part of the state's identity, they argue, and has helped boost per capita income, decrease unemployment and motivated businesses and individuals to move to the state.
"By reaching across its borders into the wallets of New Hampshire residents, Massachusetts takes direct aim at New Hampshire's policy choices as a sovereign, and the New Hampshire Advantage that has resulted from those choices," wrote Attorney General Gordon MacDonald.
The complaint asks the court to declare the rule unconstitutional, block its implementation and order Massachusetts to refund the taxes. MacDonald said he expects the court to decide by the end of the year whether to hear the case.
Massachusetts officials have said the regulation is similar to those adopted by other states and have declined to comment on pending litigation.
High Court to review Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is agreeing to review a Trump administration policy that makes asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for U.S. court hearings.
As is typical, the court did not comment Monday in announcing it would hear the case. Because the court's calendar is already full through the end of the year, the justices will not hear the case until 2021. If Joe Biden were to win the presidential election and rescind the policy, the case would become largely moot.
Trump's "Migrant Protection Protocols" policy, known informally as "Remain in Mexico," was introduced in January 2019. It became a key pillar of the administration's response to an unprecedented surge of asylum-seeking families at the border, drawing criticism for having people wait in highly dangerous Mexican cities.
Lower courts found that the policy is probably illegal. But earlier this year the Supreme Court stepped in to allow the policy to remain in effect while a lawsuit challenging it plays out in the courts.
More than 60,000 asylum-seekers were returned to Mexico under the policy. The Justice Department estimated in late February that there were 25,000 people still waiting in Mexico for hearings in U.S. court. Those hearings were suspended because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Supreme Court to hear case over border wall funding
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that it improperly diverted money to build portions of the border wall with Mexico.
The high court has previously allowed construction to continue, even after a federal appeals court ruled in June that the administration had illegally sidestepped Congress in transferring the Defense Department funds.
The case will not be argued before the winter and it's unclear how the outcome of the presidential election would affect the case, if Democrat Joe Biden wins the White House.
It's also not clear whether the administration has spent all of the $2.5 billion it moved to the wall project. Dissenting from a July order that allowed construction to continue, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the court's action "I fear, may operate, in effect, as a final judgment."
The case has its origins in the 35-day partial government shutdown that started in December of 2018. Trump ended the shutdown after Congress gave him approximately $1.4 billion in border wall funding, but that was far less than the $5.7 billion he was seeking. Trump then declared a national emergency to take cash from other government accounts to use to construct sections of the wall.
At the time, the money Trump identified included $2.5 billion in Defense Department money, $3.6 billion from military construction funds and $600 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.
The case before the Supreme Court involved just the $2.5 billion in Defense Department funds. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition. California led a similar lawsuit on behalf of several states.
