The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that a proposed ballot initiative that would have imposed statewide rent caps for the first time since 1994 violated the state constitution because it exempted units in religious facilities. The court held that the state constitution does not allow ballot petitions related to religion, and because the exemption could not be severed or changed without rewriting the initiative, the entire measure was invalid. The Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth confirmed that the question will not appear on the November ballot.
The initiative would have limited annual rent increases to the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is lower, and applied to most residential properties statewide. It exempted small landlords and buildings less than 10 years old, as well as units in religious facilities — the provision that proved fatal. The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by four Massachusetts landlords and funded by Housing for Massachusetts, a campaign backed by trade groups for real-estate owners and developers.
Tamara Small, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts, a commercial real-estate group that is a member of the opposition coalition, said the measure’s defeat was critical. “If this thing had passed, it would have been catastrophic,” Small told the Wall Street Journal.
Proponents said they would continue to push for rent regulation by other means. Carolyn Chou, executive director of Homes for All Massachusetts, the coalition that supported the initiative, said the campaign demonstrated broad interest in reform. “Through this campaign, it’s become clear that many members of the local real-estate industry understand the need for common-sense rent regulation,” Chou said.
The push in Massachusetts had placed the state at the center of a national debate over whether rent controls can ease a housing affordability crisis or discourage new development. Other jurisdictions moving to strengthen tenant protections include New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani has promised a rent freeze on rent-regulated apartments, and Los Angeles, which recently tightened rent controls for the first time in four decades. Opponents point to St. Paul, Minnesota, where a rent-control ordinance enacted in 2022 led to a drop in building activity and was later revised.
The ballot proposal divided top Massachusetts Democrats. Gov. Maura Healey opposed the measure, saying it would scare off developers, while Boston Mayor Michelle Wu supported a legislative compromise that would have let municipalities adopt local rent limits. Healey said Tuesday that her focus is on building more homes. Wu said the ruling stalls momentum for reform but described “recent momentum behind compromise legislation” as reflecting “the urgency and growing public demand for action after years of delay.”
Earlier this month, proponents said they were working on a compromise that would involve legislation allowing municipalities to adopt local rent limits in exchange for withdrawing the ballot petition. They still support that legislation, but the court ruling likely stalls the push because the Democratic-controlled legislature has previously declined to lift the state’s three-decade ban on rent control.
Massachusetts has one of the highest rental markets in the country. According to Zillow, the average two-bedroom apartment in the state rents for about $2,580 a month, 44% above the national average. The top donors to the Yes campaign were tenant-advocacy organizations and the Massachusetts Teachers Association. The top donors to the No campaign were real-estate investment trusts Equity Residential, AvalonBay Communities and UDR, along with Realtor associations.