|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
BOSTON — The state’s highest court continued to shape the issues that voters will get to decide on November’s ballot, ruling Tuesday that the initiative petition to repeal the state’s three-decade ban on rent control cannot move forward.
The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court determined the proposal to impose statewide rent control “impermissibly” relates to religion and religious institutions, which are among the matters the state Constitution sets as out of bounds from the initiative petition process.
The ruling ends, at least for 2026, a high-profile effort to cap annual rent increases across Massachusetts. The initiative petition would have repealed the state’s 1994 ban on rent control and limited yearly increases on most residential units to the lower of inflation or 5%.
The petition states that it would not apply to housing units in “facilities operated solely for … religious … purposes.” The plaintiffs claimed the petition should be disqualified because “religion is a factor in the application of the law,” citing a legal precedent that is key to the court’s ruling.
“The petition … concerns a generally secular subject matter — rent control,” Justice Frank Gaziano wrote for the court. “But, by including an express exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes, the petition impermissibly makes religion ‘a factor in [the petition’s] application.’ And in order to enforce the proposed law, the exemption would require the government to determine if a facility is ‘operated solely for … religious … purposes,’ and then make an enforcement decision based on the facility’s religious purpose (or lack thereof). Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities.”
Attorney General Andrea Campbell had certified the question for the ballot, under a required process that she has called “stupid” and said needs to be “revamped.” Her office had argued that the petition was just a rent control matter.
On GBH Radio about an hour after the SJC’s decision came down, Campbell acknowledged the court “ruled against us and said we got that wrong.” She said her office “went into the hearing understanding” that the court might focus on the relationship between the petition and religion.
“But we said to the court at the time, ‘The initiative exempts a number of types of housing, including nonprofit housing.’ And the exemption for religious uses was a minor one within the broader petition. The court disagreed and said that even a minor reference to religion is not appropriate for a ballot initiative,” Campbell said. “I think it was only the second time that the court has reviewed this standard, so it’s not like it happens frequently. We were surprised, but of course we will follow the court’s ruling and move forward. And this ballot question will not move forward to the ballot.”
Justice Scott Kafker wrote his own concurring opinion in the case, along with Gaziano’s main decision. Kafker agreed that the petition cannot go forward, but wrote that he would not have held that any religious distinction dooms a ballot question. He added that he is “aware of no other State that has such a religion exclusion” in its initiative petition process.
Instead, he focused on how the rent control question would require the government to decide whether a unit is run solely for religious purposes, forcing “a deep dive” into a religious institution’s finances, motives, and practices — an intrusive inquiry he said the Constitution forbids.
“Had the initiative simply stated that it limits rent increases in dwelling units operated by for-profit institutions, but not in dwelling units operated by non-profit institutions, a very different question would have been presented. Distinguishing for-profit from non-profit institutions does not require an analysis that relates to religion or religious institutions,” Kafker wrote.
Rent control boosters called Tuesday’s declaration from the SJC “a massive disappointment” but said also that “it’s far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes.”
“While we disagree with the court’s interpretation, the issue raised by the court is easily fixable, and doesn’t affect the substance of our proposal,” Noemi “Mimi” Ramos, executive director of New England Community Project and chair of the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, said.
Rent control supporters plan to gather outside the State House Wednesday to discuss the court decision and urge legislators to pass a bill “that would enable municipalities to adopt local option rent stabilization policies.”
Supporters of the question saw it as instituting a needed lid on rising tenant costs that are a major contributor to the affordability woes facing residents. Gov. Maura Healey and legislative leaders opposed the proposal, echoing claims by the real estate industry that controls on rent would discourage needed housing production.
“Today the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional,” Conor Yunits, chair and spokesman for the Housing for Massachusetts committee formed to oppose the ballot question, said. “While we firmly believe that Massachusetts voters were prepared to vote ‘no’ in November, today’s decision puts the issue to rest and protects our housing pipeline and our communities from the proven damage that rent control inflicts.”
The Fiscal Alliance Foundation, which has worked to oppose rent control, called Tuesday’s SJC ruling “a major victory for the people of Massachusetts.”
“Today’s ruling gives lawmakers a chance to focus on real housing solutions, including building more homes, reducing barriers to construction, and making Massachusetts a place where families can afford to live,” Executive Director Paul Craney said.
As a result of legal challenges like the one to the rent control initiative and advisory opinions requested by the Senate, the SJC has had an active hand in shaping the November 2026 ballot.
The court has swatted away legal challenges and ruled that petitions that would undo the 2016 legalization of recreational marijuana and switch the state to a single all-party primary election structure can continue their journeys to go before voters on Nov. 4.
The justices sided with plaintiffs in another challenge, ruling that a question to cut the state income tax rate could not stay on the ballot as a result of Campbell’s faulty summary of the measure. A proposal to overhaul how legislative stipends are dished out and tie them to internal procedural benchmarks was scuttled after the SJC said in an advisory opinion requested by the Senate that the measure crossed a constitutional line. The court did not block, but did not resolve questions regarding, the constitutionality of a question to apply the public records law to the Legislature and governor’s office.
The rent control question was the last of this year’s ballot questions still pending with the SJC.
Good for the SJC. While rent control is important, why deform it out of the gate with a religious exemption? Laws and taxes should apply equally to everyone. We may have become inured to special legal and tax carve-outs for religious institutions, corporations and police that do not apply to the rest of us, but none of this is compatible with a real democracy.