SAVOY — John F. Carbin has completed some of the plumbing work on a home that he plans to retire to in the Berkshires.
But he’s waiting on the building permit, and for him, that means waiting on the United States Supreme Court.
Carbin, who lives in Westfield, wants to do the work himself. But state regulations say only licensed plumbers and pipefitters can pull a building permit here.
Carbin says that’s wrong, even though it’s been the way things work in the Bay State for about 100 years.
“I think the board of plumbers is ripping people off. I don’t think that’s acceptable,” he said by phone. “Realistically, people do plumbing all the time. The state pretends it’s not happening.”
Carbin sued in federal court to overturn the rules in 2023. In Springfield, U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni dismissed the case in 2024.
In July, an appeals court flushed the case again.
So Carbin, a former aircraft technician, found the pro-property rights Pacific Legal Foundation online. Lawyers there helped him ask Friday for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Until the court has ruled, he won’t hang drywall over his roughed-in plumbing work.
“I don’t want to cover anything, because I am not hiding anything,” he said.
The Pacific Legal Foundation touts itself as a firm “suing the government since 1973.”
In Carbin’s case, one of the foundation’s arguments asks the Supreme Court to apply the same history-and-tradition test that justices used in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn abortion rights.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, already granted an extension this fall on a filing date, giving Carbin and the foundation until this past Friday to file its request for review.
Even though Carbin and his attorneys have the right to ask the Supreme Court to take the case, the court hears only a tiny percentage of these requests.
Carbin’s suit was first dismissed in 2024 at federal court in Springfield. When taking that action, Mastroianni wrote that the courts are bound to respect the state Legislature’s reasons for protecting health and safety.
Rights are fundamental, Mastroianni wrote, only if they are enumerated in the Constitution or deeply rooted in the nation’s history or tradition.
Plumbing doesn’t meet those criteria.
“Since there is no fundamental right to perform plumbing work, the court presumes the regulations challenged by plaintiff are valid and must uphold the regulations if they are ‘rationally related to a legitimate government interest,’” Mastroianni wrote.
The town of Savoy, the commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters were named as respondents.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, which is responsible for defending the suit, declined to comment Monday.
