Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
From 1 January 2026, household energy bills will rise by 0.2% on average, according to new figures released today by Ofgem. While this looks minimal, MoneySavingExpert founder Martin Lewis has warned that high electricity users will see increases of 3–4%, driven by sharply rising electricity unit rates and standing charges.
Ofgem’s latest update changes the maximum unit rates and standing charges suppliers can bill customers on standard variable tariffs.
But behind the headline 0.2% rise:
Electricity unit rates are rising sharply
Gas unit rates are falling
Standing charges for both fuels are rising again
Policy and network costs now make up a large share of bills
This means households with high electricity usage and little or no gas use will be disproportionately affected.
| Fuel | Unit Rate (per kWh) | Change vs Previous Cap | Standing Charge (per day) | Change vs Previous Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gas | 5.93p | Down 5.7% | 35.09p | Up 3.1% |
| Electricity | 27.69p | Up 5.1% | 54.75p | Up 2% |
Rates are averages across Great Britain and vary by region. Figures assume payment by monthly Direct Debit and include 5% VAT.
Reacting to Ofgem’s announcement, Martin Lewis warned:
“The headline is Ofgem's Energy Price Cap is to rise 0.2%, but that's only part of the story. Electricity costs are rising a real amount, gas falls, and yet again the hated standing charges are rising.”
He highlighted the key changes:
Electricity unit rate: 27.69p/kWh (up 5.1%)
Electricity standing charge: 54.75p/day (up 2%)
Gas unit rate: 5.93p/kWh (down 5.7%)
Gas standing charge: 35.09p/day (up 3.1%)
Lewis said households on the Price Cap with high electricity use will likely see bills rise 3–4%.
He added that the rises are driven not by wholesale markets, but by policy and network costs such as:
nuclear funding
Warm Home Discount
network upgrades
interconnector costs
According to Lewis, electricity is treated as the policy dumping ground for government schemes:
Warm Home Discount
renewables funding
debt relief schemes
network investment
This has created a perverse outcome where electricity becomes more expensive even as the Government encourages households to move away from gas.
Analysts currently predict a 4–5% rise in April 2026, driven by:
increased network costs
ongoing policy charges
long-term infrastructure investment until mid-2030s
According to Martin Lewis:
The cheapest fixes are currently around 10% cheaper than the current Price Cap.
New, even cheaper tariffs may launch next week.
Households with high electricity use benefit most from switching.
He recommends using comparison tools such as Cheap Energy Club to find the best tariff.
EDF’s special tracker: good for very low-usage households (cuts up to £50 from annual standing charges).
Octopus time-of-use tariffs: ideal for EV owners or flexible users with smart meters.
The Energy Price Cap:
sets the maximum unit rates suppliers can charge on standard/default tariffs
limits standing charges
updates every 3 months
does not limit your total bill — the more you use, the more you pay
Two-thirds of UK households are on Price-Capped tariffs.
The Energy Price Cap was created under the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018, which requires Ofgem to limit unit rates and standing charges for standard variable tariffs. Ofgem is legally obliged to review the cap every three months, using methods set out in the Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989. These frameworks allow policy and network costs to be added to bills, which is why standing charges continue to rise even when wholesale gas prices fall.
Why are electricity prices rising but gas falling?
Because policy and network costs are placed mostly on electricity bills, making electricity artificially more expensive relative to gas.
How much will my bill increase on 1 January 2026?
The average household will see a rise of 0.2%, but high electricity users may see 3–4% increases.
Why are standing charges rising again?
Standing charges fund fixed costs including network maintenance, environmental programmes, debt relief, and Warm Home Discount obligations.
Should I fix my energy tariff now?
Fixing can save around 10% versus the current Price Cap, but waiting a week could secure even cheaper deals if suppliers launch new tariffs.
Why does Martin Lewis call policy charges “perverse”?
Because the Government wants consumers to move away from gas, yet policy costs added to electricity bills make electricity relatively more expensive.
What is the April 2026 forecast?
Analysts expect a 4–5% rise, driven mainly by increased network costs and ongoing infrastructure investment.
Ofgem – January 2026 Price Cap announcement
MoneySavingExpert.com – Martin Lewis analysis on X
Comparison site rate data (Cheap Energy Club)
Supplier pricing structures (EDF, Octopus, British Gas, Ovo)
Energy network cost assessments (Ofgem documentation)
A Transgender Day of Remembrance memorial on Boston Common was “deliberately taken down” and removed without a trace this week, LGBTQ advocates said, prompting calls for a full hate-crime investigation and outrage over the city’s silence.
More than 425 trans flags, planted legally across from the State House to honor every known transgender and gender-expansive person killed since 2020, vanished sometime between Monday night and Tuesday morning. By dawn, organizers said, the memorial had been erased completely.
“This wasn’t random vandalism — it’s a hate crime,” the Queer Neighborhood Council said in a statement Thursday. “It echoes the same prejudice and violence TDOR exists to confront.”
The flags were installed Sunday by volunteers at the Queer Neighborhood Council. By Monday night, Executive Director Jack Imbergamo received an email saying multiple people were seen pulling up the flags and throwing them out. When he returned Tuesday morning, the lawn was spotless.
“It was like they were never there,” Imbergamo said.
The group immediately filed a report with Boston Police. As of Thursday, there was no confirmation of an active investigation, and no comment from Gov. Maura Healey, Mayor Michelle Wu, BPD, or Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
The silence has only sharpened frustration within Boston’s trans community.
“It’s discouraging that we can’t even honor our dead — and especially not this week,” Imbergamo said. “It’s heartbreaking to see that here.”
The disappearance comes during Transgender Awareness Week, in a year when Massachusetts officials have publicly condemned anti-trans rhetoric but have struggled to respond decisively when attacks occur.
Advocates note:
Boston just launched a new LGBTQIA2S+ community advisory council
A Massachusetts Commission member — a trans woman — faced death threats after right-wing media coverage
The Trump administration has spent 2025 rolling back federal protections for transgender Americans
Against that backdrop, LGBTQ leaders say the vanishing memorial isn’t just vandalism — it’s a test of the state’s resolve.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley condemned the removal as “absolutely despicable,” adding:
“Our trans siblings deserve to live safely — without fear of violence or hateful, cowardly acts like these.”
For organizers, the fear isn’t just the act itself — it’s the possibility that nothing happens next.
Queer Neighborhood Council members have discussed reinstalling the flags, though no decision has been made.
Imbergamo said he’s spending Transgender Day of Remembrance honoring those who were killed and recommitting to the work ahead.
“I’m a leader of a queer organization in America right now. My community feels very much under attack,” he said.
“Trans people exist, and we are not going anywhere.”
➡️ Latest: Encore Slams Online Gambling Bill as a ‘Bad Bet,’ Warning Mass. Lawmakers It Will Cost Jobs and Gut Casinos ⬅️
Massachusetts lawmakers opened the first hearing on a sweeping online gambling bill to a fierce warning from Encore Boston Harbor, which blasted the proposal as an economic threat that would “cannibalize” the state’s brick-and-mortar casinos and wipe out thousands of jobs.
The flashpoint came as legislators on the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies weighed whether to legalize full online casino gaming — a move supporters say will raise revenue and bring underground gambling “out of the shadows,” but opponents argue will gut the casino industry and fuel addiction across the state.
Filed by Rep. David Muradian, the proposal would:
Give the Massachusetts Gaming Commission full regulatory control
Impose a 15% tax on online gaming revenue
Restrict online gambling licenses to existing casino operators
Allow digital slots, poker, blackjack, and other casino-style games statewide
Massachusetts already allows online sports betting.
This bill would go much further.
Encore Boston Harbor submitted a blistering letter to lawmakers ahead of the hearing, warning that legalized online casinos could devastate the state’s gaming economy.
Eileen McAnneny, Encore’s government relations director, told lawmakers:
iGaming would cost 1,800 people their jobs
The state would lose $450 million in GDP, tax revenue, and related economic activity
Gambling addiction costs would rise dramatically
Her bottom line was blunt:
“Internet casino gambling is a bad bet for Massachusetts.”
Encore also sent a union representative to reinforce the argument that online gaming would hollow out in-person casino traffic, endangering union jobs and shrinking local revenue.
Behind the scenes, Beacon Hill insiders say the battle isn’t simply casinos vs. technology — it’s a war between two competing visions for the state’s gambling future.
Supporters argue:
Massachusetts is already losing revenue to illegal offshore gambling
Other Northeastern states are cashing in
Regulated online casinos could generate millions in taxes
Opponents counter:
Casinos are major employers with heavy local investment
Online gaming could erode casino-based tax agreements
Addiction risks could produce a public health crisis the state isn’t prepared for
Legislators must now decide whether Massachusetts doubles down on physical casinos — or pivots toward digital gambling with potentially massive economic consequences.
Muradian told lawmakers the goal is regulation, not expansion:
Bring illegal online gambling “into the light”
Use age and location verification to protect players
Require monitoring for problem gambling
Keep tax revenue in Massachusetts rather than “sending it overseas”
PENN Entertainment, owner of Plainridge Park Casino, supports legalization — but only if all online licenses remain tied to physical casinos, a compromise meant to prevent market dilution.
A new UMass study shows that sports betting legalization has already contributed to rising addiction rates:
Problem gambling among Massachusetts bettors rose from 20.9% (2022) to 28% (2024)
Former state representative David Nangle, a recovering gambling addict, urged lawmakers to reject the bill:
“There’s no Narcan for gambling. Don’t turn every cellphone in Massachusetts into a casino.”
Harvard public health professor Shekhar Saxena warned that online gambling is “10 times more harmful” than traditional forms because it is constant, private, and available 24/7.
The state panel overseeing police conduct has rejected a push to discipline Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox, ruling he’s exempt from oversight — a decision that infuriated attorney Alan Jackson, who accused Cox of lying publicly about a key witness in the Karen Read case.
In a sharply worded response Thursday, the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission said the state’s top cop cannot be investigated at all because he isn’t actually a cop under Massachusetts law.
Cox, POST Executive Director Enrique A. Zuniga wrote, is a “civilian executive, not a sworn law enforcement officer.”
For Jackson — who represents Read — the ruling amounts to a shield that protects the one official he claims misled the public during one of the most explosive cases Massachusetts has seen in years.
The clash erupted over Cox’s July comments regarding Kelly Dever, a former Boston Police officer whose contentious testimony made headlines during Read’s second trial.
Cox told reporters he never pressured Dever to adjust her testimony and claimed he didn’t even know she was connected to the Read case.
Jackson fired back in a blistering letter accusing Cox of “a bald-faced lie” and demanding he be referred to the Brady list, which tracks officers with credibility issues.
Dever later confirmed she did speak with Cox before testifying, though she insisted he did not attempt to influence her and “just wanted me to tell the truth.”
POST’s decision exposes a striking accountability vacuum:
the highest-ranking police official in Boston cannot be investigated by the police oversight board at all.
The reason?
Cox doesn’t carry a gun or badge in his role and isn’t required to hold law enforcement certification — the very credential POST exists to regulate.
Zuniga acknowledged the disconnect and admitted Cox’s situation has prompted internal review:
“Your comments have been influential… the Commission is re-examining its policies concerning the treatment of civilian authorities.”
Critics say the exemption leaves Boston’s most powerful police official effectively unreachable by the state’s accountability apparatus, even when accused of dishonesty about a high-profile case that shook Massachusetts for two years.
Cox has repeatedly tried to distance himself from the Read case, insisting the matter “has nothing to do with us.”
Earlier this month, when pressed again about Jackson’s accusations, Cox snapped:
“What I need… is not to be asked this question ever again.”
He offered condolences to Officer John O’Keefe’s family but maintained he would not revisit the topic.
Read was acquitted of murder and manslaughter in June after jurors rejected prosecutors’ claim she drunkenly hit O’Keefe with her SUV outside a fellow officer’s home. She was convicted only of a drunk driving misdemeanor after arguing she had been framed in a massive police coverup.
The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s refusal to investigate Commissioner Michael Cox hinges on a narrow but consequential provision of state law. Under M.G.L. c. 6E, POST has authority only over “certified law enforcement officers”—individuals who are sworn, carry police powers, and hold state-issued certification.
Cox, despite leading the Boston Police Department, does not hold law enforcement certification in his role as commissioner. POST therefore concluded it has no statutory jurisdiction to discipline, investigate, or decertify him. The Commission emphasized that its oversight powers apply exclusively to sworn officers, not to civilian executives, even if they oversee a sworn department.
This legal distinction created what critics call a structural loophole: the state’s top police official is outside the very accountability system designed to police officer misconduct. While POST acknowledged the discrepancy and said it is re-examining its policies, current law does not provide a mechanism to review civilian police leaders.
In effect, the ruling underscores a broader reality in Massachusetts:
police oversight laws were not written with civilian police commissioners in mind—leaving a significant gap in accountability during high-profile controversies like the Karen Read case.
👉 In Focus: Encore Slams Online Gambling Bill as a ‘Bad Bet,’ Warning Mass. Lawmakers It Will Cost Jobs and Gut Casinos 👈
Ja Rule is calling out what he says is pure fiction — and taking aim at the blogger who pushed it.
The 49-year-old rapper erupted on Friday after online personality Tasha K claimed he’d been “jumped” outside a New York City restaurant. The allegation ricocheted across social media within minutes, sparking rumors that the rapper had been badly beaten.
Ja Rule, however, insists nothing of the sort happened — and he says anyone claiming otherwise is playing with legal fire.
On Thursday night, Tasha K told her followers that she was “being told it was pretty f---ing bad,” alleging Ja Rule had been attacked.
By Friday morning, Ja Rule directly quote-tweeted her and dismissed the entire story:
“Tasha why you lying to these good ppl… Yes some bitch ass n----- tried to jump me… I’m chilling smoking a joint watching SVP wit not a scratch on me.”
He did not elaborate further on the attempted attack, but made it clear he walked away unharmed.
When Tasha K doubled down — claiming she had “receipts” and inside sources — Ja Rule fired back again:
“You like getting sued I see…”
He later posted a video of himself laughing in a hoodie, sipping from a red mug.
“Believe half of what you see and none of what you read… we good over here!!!”
Neither side’s representatives have responded to requests for comment.
This blowup didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Tasha K has a long, controversial history of publishing unverified celebrity claims — including the Cardi B defamation case that resulted in a $4 million judgment against her. That history makes any allegation she posts instantly explosive… and instantly suspect.
For a high-profile artist like Ja Rule, whose past legal troubles have often been weaponized online, letting rumors spread unchecked comes with real stakes.
A public “jumping” narrative — even if false — can damage credibility, business deals, or the carefully rebuilt public image he’s cultivated over the last decade.
So when Tasha K claimed she had footage and anonymous “inside” sources, Ja Rule responded in a way that suggests he’s prepared to treat this the same way Cardi B did: as potential defamation.
This is why the internet latched onto it so fast — and why Ja Rule reacted so bluntly.
Tasha K continued to insist she had information about what “really happened,” claiming Ja Rule knew her team was present and teasing that she was “ready to spill some wine.”
She also posted a screenshot of what she said was a source describing the incident, though no official confirmation or video has surfaced.
“Everything is allegedly!” she wrote — adding, “Even my name is allegedly!!”
Ja Rule’s response made clear he wasn’t amused.
The rapper declined to share more details about who confronted him or why.
With both sides publicly digging in, the dispute has now become a full-fledged online standoff between a rapper battling a decade of rumor-driven narratives and a blogger with a massive following — and a history of costly legal battles over the truthfulness of her reporting.
For now, Ja Rule says he’s fine, uninjured, unbothered — and watching sports at home.
But if his tone is any indication, the story may not end with a tweet.
👉 IN FOCUS: Encore Slams Online Gambling Bill as a ‘Bad Bet,’ Warning Mass. Lawmakers It Will Cost Jobs and Gut Casinos 👈
After more than three decades in Congress, Rep. Nydia Velázquez — a political trailblazer and one of New York’s most influential progressive voices — announced she will not seek reelection in 2026, ending a historic run that reshaped Latino political power in the city and on Capitol Hill.
The 72-year-old congresswoman, the first Puerto Rican ever elected to the U.S. House, said in a Nov. 20 statement that she had “poured her heart” into the job but believes it is time for a new generation to step forward. Her decision instantly detonates a political sprint in one of the most fiercely progressive districts in America.
Velázquez has represented parts of Queens and Brooklyn since 1992, becoming known as “La Luchadora” — The Fighter — for ousting nine-term Rep. Stephen Solarz and opening doors for Latinas nationally. She has been a mentor to a new wave of progressive lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Throughout her career, she cultivated a reputation as a consistent voice against war, a defender of immigrant communities, and a champion of small businesses. She opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and more recently has been outspoken in calling for a Gaza ceasefire.
In her retirement announcement, Velázquez said she first ran because “immigrants, workers, and families struggling to get by” weren’t being heard. More than three decades later, she said those communities face new crises but insisted she trusts the leaders rising behind her.
Her departure instantly transforms New York’s 7th Congressional District into one of the hottest battlegrounds of 2026. NY-7 — stretching across Long Island City, Sunnyside, Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and Bushwick — is a progressive stronghold where Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani dominated precincts with more than 80% of the vote.
No candidates had announced prior to her retirement because Velázquez’s hold on the district was that strong.
Now, the field is expected to explode.
Progressives will see NY-7 as a must-win ideological seat.
Establishment Democrats risk being outflanked from their left.
Local organizers, activists, and state legislators are already being floated as potential contenders.
Political insiders say the race to replace her is likely to mirror — or surpass — the frenzy unleashed when Rep. Jerry Nadler announced his retirement in District 12 earlier this year.
Velázquez has not named a preferred successor but told The New York Times she may consider an endorsement closer to the June primary.
Velázquez’s rise rewrote the political possibilities for Latinas in New York and Washington. Before reaching Congress, she became the first Latina to serve on the New York City Council. Later, she broke another barrier as the first Latina to chair a full committee in Congress when she led the Small Business Committee. She also chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and played a key role in the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Her legacy includes decades of mentorship to up-and-coming progressive lawmakers and relentless advocacy for Puerto Rico, small business owners, renters, and working-class New Yorkers.
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani called Velázquez a “champion and a tireless advocate” for immigrants and families struggling to get by, saying, “Your grace and fight showed us what real leadership looks like.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described her as “a trailblazer, a transformational figure, and a tenacious truth-teller,” adding that she will be “deeply missed” in the Democratic caucus.
“There is nobody better to have in your corner than Nydia,” Jeffries said.
👉 Latest: Ja Rule Fires Back After Blogger Claims He Was Jumped in NYC: “Not a Scratch on Me” 👈
Thanksgiving weekend is about to unleash one of the busiest travel surges of the year — and the MTA says riders should brace themselves. From packed subway platforms to extra commuter rail service and parade-related closures, New Yorkers moving around the city between Wednesday and Sunday will face a very different transit landscape.
Whether you’re hitting the Macy’s parade, heading to family, or escaping the city entirely, here’s exactly what to expect across subways, buses, LIRR, and Metro-North.
Wednesday, Nov. 26
Regular weekday service.
Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, Nov. 27
Subways + buses run on Sunday schedules.
Extra early-morning service on the 42 St Shuttle and 1 train for parade-goers.
Expect major delays and reroutes on Manhattan bus routes near the parade route.
59 St–Columbus Circle: several entrances/exits closed.
Select Penn Station and Sixth Avenue line entrances also closed.
79th Street Transverse CLOSED from noon Wednesday → noon Thursday. No buses permitted.
Friday, Nov. 28
Subways + SIR: Regular weekday schedule.
Buses: Reduced weekday schedule.
The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade starts 8:30 a.m. at 77 St & Central Park West and ends at Herald Square.
Best stations for the start:
72 St (1, 2, 3)
79 St (1)
59 St–Columbus Circle (A, B, C, D, 1)
Arrive early — trains will be standing-room only by 7 a.m.
Metro-North (East of Hudson):
10 extra early-afternoon trains from Grand Central.
Several evening trains cancelled.
Hudson & Harlem Lines: 3 early departures each.
New Haven Line: 4 early departures.
Metro-North (West of Hudson):
Port Jervis Line: Early getaway train at 2:41 p.m. from Hoboken, arriving 4:56 p.m.
Connecting NYC Penn departure: 2:34 p.m.
Pascack Valley: 5:08 p.m. Hoboken departure’s Penn connection leaves 5:20 p.m. (5 minutes earlier than usual).
LIRR:
Regular weekday schedule.
LIRR:
Holiday/weekend schedule + 15 extra trains before and after the parade.
Metro-North (East of Hudson):
Special schedule with added morning inbound service.
Extra outbound trains late morning → mid-afternoon.
Expanded evening service returning to NYC.
Metro-North (West of Hudson):
Weekend schedule + 2 extra Port Jervis Line trains for parade travel.
Metro-North: Enhanced Saturday schedule.
LIRR: Regular weekday schedule.
Manhattan bus gridlock: Midtown frozen zones + parade street closures = heavy delays.
Crammed platforms: 59 St–Columbus Circle, 72 St, and Herald Square will be packed.
Earlier departures: West-of-Hudson Metro-North riders MUST check holiday-adjusted times.
Closed entrances/exits: Particularly around parade routes.
Long waits leaving Manhattan Thursday afternoon: LIRR & Metro-North trains fill quickly after the parade.
If you’re traveling with kids or luggage, build in extra time — especially Thursday morning and Friday afternoon.
The MTA urges riders to check:
mta.info
MYmta app
TrainTime app (LIRR + Metro-North)
MTA warns schedules can shift during the holiday rush due to crowd control or police activity.
👉 Recent News: Ja Rule Fires Back After Blogger Claims He Was Jumped in NYC: “Not a Scratch on Me” 👈
A 48-year-old man was stabbed to death inside a Brownsville NYCHA complex Wednesday evening — a brutal killing residents say underscores long-standing fears about safety inside the city’s public housing developments.
Police say the victim, Kevin Coleman, was attacked just after 5:30 p.m. inside the Langston Hughes Houses on Sutter Avenue. Officers from the 73rd Precinct arrived to find him suffering from multiple stab wounds. Coleman, who lived about a mile away in East New York, was rushed to Brookdale Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
No arrests have been made. No suspects have been identified. And neighbors are once again left asking how a fatal stabbing could unfold inside a NYCHA building with cameras, guards, and long-promised security upgrades.
According to law enforcement, officers responded within minutes of the initial 911 call reporting an assault in progress. But by the time they reached the hallway where Coleman was found, the attacker was gone.
Detectives remained on scene late into the night, canvassing the building for witnesses and reviewing available surveillance footage.
The NYPD has not released possible motives, and investigators say it remains unclear whether Coleman knew his assailant.
Residents at the Langston Hughes Houses told officers and reporters that violence inside the development is not new — and that they’ve repeatedly demanded working cameras, improved lighting, and more visible NYPD or NYCHA security patrols.
Some tenants say they fear walking to their apartments after dark, describing unreliable door locks, broken intercoms, and stairwells that attract trespassers.
Others quietly admitted the killing did not shock them.
“People here complain all the time that nobody listens until someone ends up dead,” one resident said. “Now it’s happened again.”
NYCHA did not immediately return a request for comment on safety conditions at the complex.
Detectives are asking anyone with information about the stabbing — including neighbors who may have seen someone fleeing the area — to contact Crime Stoppers at 800-577-TIPS or submit online tips anonymously.
All tips will be kept confidential.
👉 MTA Update: Thanksgiving Travel Alert: Major MTA Changes, Extra Trains, Closed Stations — Here’s What NYC Commuters Need to Know 👈
A Middlesex County family has been ordered to repay a staggering $41,500 in school tuition after New Jersey education officials ruled their children attended the Milltown school district while the family was actually living miles away in North Brunswick.
The ruling — adopted Oct. 31 by the state education commissioner — concludes the parents falsely claimed to be homeless in order to keep their children enrolled in Milltown schools while their new home was under construction. An administrative law judge rejected their explanation as “not credible,” saying there was no proof the move was due to hardship or necessity.
For the district, it’s one of the largest tuition clawbacks in recent memory.
For the family, it’s a financial disaster.
According to court records, the family lived in North Brunswick from November 2023 through March 2025 while continuing to send their children to Milltown schools. Under New Jersey law, homeless students can remain in their original district without paying tuition — but the burden of proof falls on the family.
Judge Allison Friedman said that burden wasn’t met.
She found:
The family chose to leave their Clay Street apartment
They moved into a “larger” North Brunswick home
They took their valuables — TVs, computers, schoolwork, clothing — when they left
There was no evidence of an illegal lockout
There was no evidence they ever slept in the Milltown home under renovation
Friedman wrote the parents “failed to show a financial need” to remain in North Brunswick for more than a year.
The commissioner agreed.
Milltown officials declined to comment.
This case comes as districts across the state ramp up residency investigations amid rising enrollment pressures and shrinking budgets. Residency enforcement — once sporadic — has become increasingly aggressive:
Landlords are reporting families to school districts
Districts are hiring private investigators
Surprise home visits are more common
Tuition back-billing now frequently reaches tens of thousands of dollars
State law allows districts to recover 100% of tuition if a family is found living outside district lines. In some cases, that number climbs into six figures.
Advocates argue the crackdown disproportionately targets low- and middle-income families navigating housing instability, construction delays, or temporary relocations.
But districts counter that out-of-town enrollment strains already tight budgets — and taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize students who don’t legally live there.
This case underscores the high stakes: One family, one move, one ruling — and a $41,500 bill.
The dispute began after the family sold their Milltown home in 2022 and temporarily moved to another Milltown address. They later relocated to North Brunswick in November 2023 during reconstruction of a home owned by the children’s grandmother.
The issue exploded when the Clay Street landlord notified Milltown that the children no longer lived there.
On April 24, 2024, Superintendent Stephanie Brown requested updated residency documents. Four days later, the parents submitted an affidavit claiming they were living at the under-construction Milltown home on Highland Drive.
But when pressed, the mother admitted they were actually living in North Brunswick, according to court documents.
The judge concluded the family did not return to the Milltown property until it received a temporary certificate of occupancy on March 6, 2025.
“There is no credible evidence to support the need to stay in North Brunswick for more than a year,” Friedman wrote.
She also found the family had not suffered “economic hardship,” noting they received proceeds from the sale of their previous Milltown home.
New Jersey’s residency and homeless-student laws sit at the center of this case — and the outcome shows just how strict those standards have become.
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.3, students who are genuinely homeless may continue attending their original school district without paying tuition. But the law places the burden of proof entirely on the family to show that homelessness was caused by factors beyond their control, such as eviction, unsafe conditions, or emergency displacement.
In this case, Administrative Law Judge Allison Friedman determined the family did not meet that threshold. The judge found there was:
No illegal lockout
No evidence of displacement or emergency conditions
No proof the family ever resided in the Milltown home under renovation
Clear evidence they voluntarily moved into a larger home in North Brunswick
Because homelessness was not established, the law required the family to pay full out-of-district tuition for the period their children remained in Milltown schools. State regulations allow districts to recover 100% of tuition when a student attends from outside district lines, even if the family believed they were eligible to remain.
The commissioner’s adoption of the ruling reinforces a broader legal pattern across New Jersey: school districts are increasingly using administrative hearings, landlord reports, and residency investigations to enforce compliance and recover costs. For families, the legal stakes are enormous — a disputed move can result in tens of thousands of dollars in back tuition, even when the circumstances involve construction delays or temporary relocations.
This case illustrates the legal message being sent statewide:
If families cannot document homelessness or residency in strict legal terms, courts will side with districts — and tuition repayment is mandatory.
👉 MTA Updates: Thanksgiving Travel Alert: Major MTA Changes, Extra Trains, Closed Stations — Here’s What NYC Commuters Need to Know 👈
New Jersey’s health insurance program for nearly 150,000 local government workers is on the brink of financial collapse — and Gov. Phil Murphy says only a $260 million taxpayer-funded bailout can stop it. But his plan comes with a bombshell condition: workers will pay sharply higher premiums, higher deductibles, and lose nearly all of their plan options.
Union leaders are calling it an ambush. Economists are calling it a market failure. And lawmakers are now staring down the largest benefits showdown since the Christie-era pension wars.
Murphy’s message to public employees was blunt: the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) is broke, bleeding members, and will implode next year without sweeping structural changes. Unions had a different message: “This proposal is a joke.”
Premiums in the SHBP for local workers have surged 59% in three years, causing major counties and towns to flee to private carriers. That exodus left behind a smaller, sicker pool — driving costs even higher.
Murphy wants to plug the hole with a $260 million rescue plan that includes:
A $180 million loan to wipe out old claims
An $80 million emergency reserve
A massive overhaul reducing plan choices from 50 to just 6
Much higher worker contributions and out-of-pocket costs
Workers currently enjoy platinum-level benefits with minimal copays. Under Murphy’s proposal, some copays would triple, and deductibles would explode to thousands of dollars a year.
Union leadership didn’t hold back.
Steve Tully of AFSCME called Murphy’s plan an “insurance executive’s dream” and said any legislator supporting it “should have their head examined.”
Labor argues the Governor is targeting workers rather than tackling the real drivers of cost: hospital pricing, drug manufacturers, and insurer markups.
Just days before Murphy unveiled his bailout, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to pay $100 million after a state Attorney General investigation found the insurer had overbilled the SHBP.
Workers say the timing is infuriating:
How can the state demand workers pay more when the program was being drained by overbilling?
Tonya Hodges of CWA District 1 blasted the proposal:
“We should be moving toward more oversight and more affordable benefits — this plan does the opposite.”
Union leaders say Murphy is sending workers the bill for years of mismanagement while refusing to police insurers that profited from a broken system.
At the League of Municipalities conference in Atlantic City, Murphy told lawmakers, mayors, and union leaders that ignoring the crisis will guarantee “astronomical” rate hikes next June — and jeopardize healthcare access for tens of thousands of public workers.
But his clock is running out.
Murphy leaves office Jan. 20, handing the crisis to Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill.
Both houses of the Legislature would need to pass a bill implementing the overhaul immediately — a tall order given the uproar.
Senate President Nick Scutari says Murphy’s plan is a possible “compromise,” but labor leaders are already campaigning to kill it.
Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin signaled openness but offered no support beyond “discussion.”
Public employment in New Jersey has long relied on better-than-private-sector health coverage to compensate for modest wages. Murphy’s overhaul would erode that bargain.
Even after the bailout, workers face:
Sharply higher premiums
Steeper deductibles
Fewer plan options
Higher costs for popular medications like GLP-1 weight-loss drugs
Tighter restrictions on leaving or joining the SHBP
Treasury officials argue these changes are overdue given skyrocketing national medical costs. But labor leaders say the Governor is using fiscal panic to force concessions workers have rejected for years.
The SHBP is a $2.27 billion program. The bailout is $260 million. That leaves a long list of questions no one in Trenton has answered:
How long will the bailout actually stabilize the program?
Will workers be asked to pay even more in 2027?
Why did the state ignore cost-saving reforms unions pushed for years?
And why were workers not protected from the Horizon overbilling scandal?
New Jersey is heading into a political, fiscal, and labor confrontation that will define Murphy’s final weeks — and Sherrill’s first crisis as governor.
New Jersey’s State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) is governed by N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.25 et seq., which gives the state broad authority to set premium rates, plan structures, and cost-sharing requirements for public workers. Under the statute, the State Treasury and the State Health Benefits Commission must ensure the program is actuarially sound — but the law does not guarantee workers any fixed premium level or specific plan design.
This means the state is legally permitted to:
Raise premiums and deductibles
Reduce the number of available plans
Restructure benefits to stabilize the fund
Use state appropriations to shore up deficits
Murphy’s $260 million bailout proposal falls squarely within these powers, but its cost-shifting elements — higher worker contributions, fewer plan options, and increased deductibles — are what triggered immediate unrest among labor unions.
Complicating the legal landscape is the Horizon overbilling settlement, in which the insurer agreed to repay $100 million after an Attorney General investigation. While unions argue this strengthens the case for stricter oversight, the SHBP statute does not require the state to offset future premium increases with recovered funds.
The legal bottom line:
The state has wide discretion to overhaul the SHBP, but unions have equally broad rights to challenge those changes through collective bargaining, arbitration, and litigation. With the program approaching insolvency, both sides are preparing for a high-stakes battle over what “shared sacrifice” should legally look like in 2025 and beyond.
👉 MTA Latest: Thanksgiving Travel Alert: Major MTA Changes, Extra Trains, Closed Stations — Here’s What NYC Commuters Need to Know 👈
