Raymond P. Parker & Todd T. Jordan, 529 Plans No Longer Subject to Pa. Inheritance Tax in Allegheny County, 26 Lawyers J. 11 (2024), Raymond Parker and Todd Jordan write that Allegheny County Orphans’ Court Judge Lawrence O’Toole recently held that the Pennsylvania statute exempting only Pennsylvania 529 plans from inheritance tax is unconstitutional because it violates the Uniformity Clause of the state Constitution. Parker and Jordan write that the decision follows the same reasoning that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court employed when it held that the state of incorporation could not be used for disparate tax treatment. As of now, only those who resided in Allegheny County prior to their death are able to exempt out-of-state 529 plans; however, the exclusion could spread statewide, county by county as cases are filed, or if the Legislature exempts all 529 plans.
Hon. Leonard G. Brown III, County Politicians and State Courts – Continual Friction and “Dissention,” 95 Pa. B.A. Q. 33 (2024), the Honorable Leonard G. Brown III writes that the division of funding responsibilities in the state Constitution has led to disagreements between the courts of common pleas and county officials regarding the staffing of county courts. Article V provides that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercises supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts to appoint administrators and staff necessary to the business of the court, but does not provide for how the salaries of such staff should be funded. Because the current system requires the courts of common pleas to go through county officials in order to fix the compensation of their staff, Judge Brown advocates a workable, systemic resolution to avoid repeated funding disputes between county officials and courts of common pleas.
Claudia De Palma and Dan Uverick-Ackelsberg, The Arc from Non-Justiciable to Fundamental: The School Funding Challenges in Pennsylvania, 33 Widener Commw. L. Rev. 75 (2024), Claudia De Palma and Dan Uverick-Ackelsberg discuss the history of Pennsylvania’s Education Clause, which originated in the 1872 Constitutional Convention. They write that although most modern litigation regarding the Education Clause concerns the adequacy of the state’s funding system, early cases involving the clause focused on an array of issues, from school district tax liability to a school’s role in guarding public health. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not hold that the Education Clause was judicially enforceable until 2017, almost 150 years after it was ratified in 1874.
Sarah Plasse, Released Into a Free Society but Serving a Life Sentence: How Sex Offender Registries Infringe Upon the Constitutional Rights of Juvenile Offenders, 30 Widener L. Rev. 71 (2024), Sarah Plasse writes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles is unconstitutional under the due process clause. The court additionally found that the registration violated the fundamental right to reputation guaranteed under the state constitution. Plasse argues that other courts should follow Pennsylvania’s reasoning and find lifetime registration of juveniles is unconstitutional.
Daniel G. Bird, Wayward Samaritans: “Nonprofit” Hospitals and their Tax-Exempt Status, 85 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 81 (2023), Daniel G. Bird writes that in 1873, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania included a provision requiring that tax exemptions be granted by general laws rather than special legislation in response to the legislature haphazardly handing out tax exemptions through special legislative grants. The state constitution further limited the legislature by defining the institutions which it could exempt from taxation, one of which is “institutions of public charity.” Bird writes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been unwilling to allow the legislature to define a purely public charity because the court alone is charged with enforcing the constitution’s reservation of tax exemptions for purely public charities.
Manoj Mate, New Hurdles to Redistricting Reform: State Evasion, Moore, and Partisan Gerrymandering, 56 Conn. L. Rev. 839 (Mar. 2024), Manoj Mate writes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the 2011 Republican gerrymander and ordered a court-drawn redistricting plan on the ground that the congressional map violated the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the state constitution. In measuring the map’s compliance with Article I, Section 5, the court held that traditional districting criteria and maintenance of population equality could be used as baseline measures to assess dilution claims. However, Mate writes that the U.S. Supreme Court held in Moore that state courts may not give themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections, which may affect Pennsylvania’s future decisions regarding gerrymandering.
Ken Gormley, Foreword: A Tribute to Chief Justice Max Baer and His Legacy, 62 Duq. L. Rev. 1 (2024), Ken Gormley writes that former Chief Justice Max Baer was keenly aware that Justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had been leaders with respect to the independent interpretation of state constitutional provisions and recognized the ongoing potential for his court to continue to develop national jurisprudence in that area. Gormley writes that Justice Baer was particularly proud of his opinion in In re J.B., in which the court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s (“SORNA”) requirements regarding the registration of all juvenile sexual offenders violated Article I, Section 1 of the state constitution.
Thomas G. Saylor, Chief Justice Max Baer and the Legitimacy of Policy Courts, 62 Duq. L. Rev. 38 (2024), Former Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor writes that the late Chief Justice Max Baer’s numerous contributions to justice are examples of legitimate manifestations of the role of policymaking beyond the realm of statutory construction. Justice Saylor writes that Baer’s work exemplifies the ways in which the judiciary takes the lead role in policymaking whether it be by delegation, by default, or by constitutional design. Justice Saylor writes that Baer established his legacy by forging his own balanced pathway in shaping public policy and set an example for the legion of judges who will follow.
Maureen Lally-Green, Just Call Me Max, 62 Duq. L. Rev. 55 (2024), Former Justice Maureen Lally-Green writes that the late Chief Justice Max Baer had firm beliefs regarding the role of the judiciary in Pennsylvania’s constitutional system. Justice Lally-Green writes that in one case, Baer dissented from the court-imposed “neutral criteria” for legislative districting timetable mandates because the requirement may conflict with Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which empowers state legislatures to address the “time, manner, and places” of holding elections.
Thomas R. Kline, Adra Laidacker, Charles Becker, The Practical Jurisprudence of Max Baer, 62 Duq. L. Rev. 61 (2024), Thomas R. Kline praises two of former Chief Justice Max Baer’s concurrences in cases regarding the cap on government liability in Pennsylvania. Kline writes that Justice Baer’s concurrences demonstrated his deep respect for the constitutional system and for the relationship between the coordinate branches of government.
Rebecca S. Goldstein, Toplash: Progressive Prosecutors Under Attack from Above, 61 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1157 (2024), Goldstein examines conflicts between progressive prosecutors and conservative state governments, wherein conservative state officials impose restrictions on the authority of progressive prosecutors through means such as limiting prosecutorial discretion, removing prosecutors from office, or reducing their jurisdictions. In Pennsylvania, the conflict highlights the constitutional tensions surrounding state interference, especially in cases such as the impeachment of Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. Goldstein writes that the conflict challenges the Pennsylvania Constitution’s protection of local governance and fuels debate about democratic legitimacy, racial dynamics, and state overreach into urban jurisdictions.
Zachary D. Clopton, Power and Politics in Original Jurisdiction, 91 U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2024), Clopton discusses the original jurisdiction of state supreme courts and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s “King’s Bench” powers, which allow it to intervene directly in urgent matters without lower court involvement. The King’s Bench jurisdiction enables the court to quickly address issues of public importance, such as elections and public health. Clopton writes that such authority can shift political dynamics by empowering the state’s supreme court to make swift, impactful rulings that align with or counter legislative agendas.