WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3102

Term limits for U.S. Supreme Court

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by John King and 1 co-sponsor

Massachusetts bill expands local senior property tax exemptions, allowing municipalities to raise eligible age and exemption amounts up to doubling or up to $2,000.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3102

Summary — H 3102 (House No. 3102)

Overview

H 3102, as filed in the 194th General Court (2025–2026), contains two distinct pieces of text appearing in the same docket entry:

  1. A substantive bill titled “An Act expanding the senior property tax exemption” that proposes amendments to Massachusetts tax law (Chapter 59, §5, Subsec. 41C).
  2. A concurrent resolution memorializing the United States Congress to enact legislation imposing term limits on the U.S. Supreme Court and commending the Court for adopting an internal Justices’ Code of Conduct.

The docket and filing metadata refer to Massachusetts sponsors (Rep. Sean Garballey and others) and municipal revenue committee referral, but the concurrent resolution text includes references to the South Carolina General Assembly, indicating an apparent drafting or clerical inconsistency.

Key provisions

1) Expansion of senior property tax exemption (statutory amendment)

  • Amends Chapter 59, Section 5, subsection 41C of the Massachusetts General Laws.
  • Keeps local option allowing cities (council + mayor approval) and towns (town meeting vote) to adjust eligibility factors.
  • Replaces existing text to explicitly allow municipalities to:
    • Reduce the age-of-eligibility to any person age 65 or older (this language appears retained).
    • Increase either or both of the amounts in the statute by up to 100%, or
    • Increase the specific $500 exemption mentioned in the statute up to $2,000.
  • Effect: gives municipalities more flexibility to enlarge the local senior property tax exemption amounts (either by doubling existing amounts or raising the $500 baseline up to $2,000).

2) Concurrent resolution on U.S. Supreme Court term limits (non‑binding)

  • Memorializes the U.S. Congress to enact legislation imposing term limits on Supreme Court Justices.
  • States the resolution’s rationale: public concern about politicization, restoring trust, and reducing polarization of the appointment process.
  • Commends the Supreme Court for adopting a Justices’ Code of Conduct (described as five ethical canons).
  • As a concurrent resolution, it expresses the legislature’s position but would not itself change federal law or Court practice.

Who is affected

  • Senior homeowners and qualifying senior taxpayers in Massachusetts: potential for larger local exemptions if their municipality elects to adopt the expanded amounts.
  • Municipal governments: discretion to adopt the larger exemptions; possible impacts on local property tax revenue and budget planning.
  • State revenue/finance offices: may see changes in amounts exempted and need to track municipal choices.
  • Federal branch (symbolically): the concurrent resolution signals the legislature’s policy preference to Congress and the public but imposes no legal change on the federal judiciary.

Fiscal and legal implications

  • Fiscal: If municipalities adopt larger exemptions, property tax revenue available for local services would decline unless offset by other revenue sources or tax rate adjustments. The bill does not include a state reimbursement mechanism in the text provided.
  • Legal/constitutional: Imposing term limits on federal judges raises constitutional questions because Article III provides judges with life tenure “during good Behaviour.” A statutory attempt to unilaterally impose term limits could face judicial review; many proposals for term limits have contemplated either congressional legislation crafted to withstand challenge or a constitutional amendment. The concurrent resolution merely requests Congressional action; it does not enact federal changes.

Procedural status & timeline (as provided)

  • Prefiled: 2024-12-05
  • Introduced (House): 2025-01-14; referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions
  • Referred to Revenue Committee: 2025-02-27
  • Senate concurred: 2025-02-27 (per docket)
  • Hearing scheduled: 2025-06-16, 1:00 PM–5:00 PM in A-1
  • Related bill: HD 2764 (replaces)

Notes and issues

  • The docketed document appears to combine two different measures (a Massachusetts municipal tax statute amendment and a concurrent memorial resolution on U.S. Supreme Court term limits). The concurrent resolution text references the “South Carolina General Assembly,” which is likely an editing error or an inserted sample text from another jurisdiction.
  • Readers should consult the final bill text posted by the Massachusetts Legislature and committee reports for any corrected or consolidated language and for fiscal analyses before drawing firm conclusions about implementation or budgetary impact.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.