Massachusetts High Court Strikes Rent-Control Question From the 2026 Ballot

Massachusetts High Court Strikes Rent-Control Question From the 2026 Ballot

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled on June 23, 2026, that a statewide rent-control initiative cannot appear on the November 2026 ballot because it exempted religious properties, an excluded matter under art. 48 of the state constitution. The 1994 rent-control ban stays in place.

Information last verified on July 3, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Massachusetts constitutional initiative-petition law under art. 48 and the state's statutory rent-control ban under G.L. c. 40P. It does not address other states' ballot-initiative or rent-regulation rules, which differ substantially. For background on Massachusetts landlord-tenant obligations generally, see Massachusetts landlord-tenant laws.

What Happened

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893, on June 23, 2026, after oral argument on May 6, 2026. Four registered voters, Arcangelo Cella, Teresa Del Signore, Katherine Horey, and Susan M. Renfrew, sued Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell and Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin, challenging the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 25-21, titled "An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases." The case went directly to the full SJC as a civil declaratory judgment action.

Justice Frank Gaziano wrote the opinion for the Court. Justice Scott Kafker filed a concurring opinion agreeing with the outcome on narrower grounds. The ruling was unanimous, with no dissent. The Court held that Petition 25-21 contains a matter excluded from the initiative process under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the petition's cap on rent increases exempted units "operated solely for religious, educational, or nonprofit purposes." The Court focused on the religious component of that exemption: that carve-out, it reasoned, makes religion a factor in the law's application and would require government officials to determine whether a given facility serves a religious purpose, so the petition "relates to religion" within the meaning of art. 48's excluded-matters clause. The Court barred the petition from the November 2026 statewide election ballot and directed the Secretary of the Commonwealth not to place it before voters.

The petition had already cleared the state's signature-gathering process. Organizers reported submitting more than 124,000 signatures to local election officials in November 2025, and the state Elections Division certified 88,132 as valid, exceeding the roughly 74,574 signatures required for the first certification stage of a Massachusetts initiative petition. That signature effort is now moot; the SJC's ruling removes the petition from the ballot regardless of signature sufficiency, because the constitutional defect goes to the petition's subject matter, not its signature count.

What the Law Actually Says

Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution establishes the state's initiative and referendum process, but it does not let voters use that process for every subject. Article 48's Initiative, Part 2, Section 2 lists "excluded matters" that may never be proposed by initiative petition, including measures relating to "religion, religious practices or religious institutions," to the judiciary, to specific appropriations, or that are restricted to a particular town or city rather than operating statewide. The Attorney General must certify, before a petition may proceed, that it does not contain an excluded matter; the SJC's role in a case like Cella is to review that certification. Here, the Court found the religious-facility exemption brought the entire petition within the religion exclusion, even though the petition's overall purpose (limiting rent increases) is not itself a matter art. 48 excludes.

Separately, Massachusetts has barred local rent control by statute since voters approved Question 9 on the November 1994 ballot. That measure is now codified as G.L. c. 40P, the Massachusetts Rent Control Prohibition Act. Chapter 40P bars any city or town from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing rent control, defined broadly to include regulation of below-market rents and related restrictions on occupancy, evictions, services, or condominium conversion. A municipality may adopt a limited, voluntary version of rent control only if it formally accepts the chapter, and even then compliance must become entirely voluntary after an initial six-month period. Because the SJC disqualified Petition 25-21, which would have repealed Chapter 40P and replaced it with a statewide CPI-or-5% rent cap, Chapter 40P's prohibition remains the operative law statewide, including in Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge, the three communities that had rent control before the 1994 ban. For the broader landlord-tenant framework that continues to apply in Massachusetts regardless of this ruling, see Massachusetts landlord-tenant laws and landlord-tenant law by state.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The Cella ruling is, at its core, a drafting-defect case rather than a referendum on rent control policy. The SJC did not evaluate whether capping rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5% is sound housing policy, and it said nothing about whether a differently drafted rent-control petition would survive art. 48 review. Its holding turned entirely on one clause: the exemption for units "operated solely for religious, educational, or nonprofit purposes." Because the religious portion of that clause required officials to assess a property's religious character to apply the law, the Court found it brought the whole petition within art. 48's religion exclusion. A single exemption, in other words, was enough to disqualify a petition that had already cleared signature thresholds and survived initial Attorney General certification.

For Massachusetts renters and landlords, the immediate, practical effect is continuity rather than change. G.L. c. 40P's statewide prohibition on local rent control was already the operative law before this ruling, and it remains so after it. Landlords are not newly freed from any restriction, and tenants are not newly exposed to any cap that had not yet taken effect; the status quo simply persists into the November 2026 election cycle. The ruling's broader significance lies in what it signals about the mechanics of the initiative process itself: petition drafters proposing statewide measures must scrutinize every exemption and carve-out in their text against art. 48's excluded-matters list, not just the measure's central policy goal, because a peripheral clause can be fatal to the entire petition regardless of how much public support it has gathered.

How This Affects You

For Massachusetts renters, this ruling means the statewide ban on rent control under G.L. c. 40P continues to apply, and no rent-increase cap tied to Petition 25-21 will appear on the November 2026 ballot. Existing tenant protections under general Massachusetts landlord-tenant law, including notice and eviction procedures, are unaffected by this decision.

For Massachusetts landlords and property owners, the ruling changes nothing about current obligations. Chapter 40P still bars a city or town from imposing rent control unless that municipality formally accepts the chapter and any local scheme becomes voluntary after six months, a pathway that remains largely theoretical in practice. Localities cannot impose binding rent control on their own initiative absent a change in state legislation or a future ballot measure that survives art. 48 review.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers Massachusetts constitutional and statutory law and reflects sources verified on July 3, 2026. This is a developing story and details may change; consult a lawyer licensed in Massachusetts about your specific situation.

Sources

• Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893 (Mass. June 23, 2026) (slip opinion)
• Massachusetts Constitution, Amendments, art. 48 (The Initiative and Referendum)
• Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title VII, Chapter 40P (The Massachusetts Rent Control Prohibition Act)
• Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court official docket, Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893 (official case docket)

Related articles

• Landlord-tenant law by state
• Massachusetts landlord-tenant laws
• Massachusetts squatters rights

---

Last updated: 2026-07-03. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-03.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is rent control legal in Massachusetts?

No, not as a mandatory local scheme. Massachusetts has barred cities and towns from enacting or enforcing rent control since voters approved Question 9 in 1994, now codified at G.L. c. 40P. A municipality may adopt only a limited, voluntary version if it formally accepts the chapter.

Why was the Massachusetts rent control ballot question removed?

On June 23, 2026, in Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously held that Initiative Petition 25-21 contained an excluded matter under art. 48 of the state constitution because it exempted units operated solely for religious purposes, making the petition one that 'relates to religion.'

Can a city in Massachusetts pass its own rent control law?

Not on its own. Under G.L. c. 40P, a city or town may adopt rent control only if it formally accepts the chapter, and any such scheme must become entirely voluntary for property owners after an initial six-month period. Absent a change in state law, a locality cannot impose binding rent control by itself.

What was Massachusetts Initiative Petition 25-21?

Initiative Petition 25-21, titled 'An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases,' was a proposed statewide law that would have repealed the rent-control ban in G.L. c. 40P and capped annual residential rent increases at the lower of the Consumer Price Index or 5%. The Supreme Judicial Court disqualified it from the November 2026 ballot.

Who decided the Massachusetts rent control ballot case?

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893, on June 23, 2026. Justice Frank Gaziano wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court, and Justice Scott Kafker filed a separate concurrence agreeing with the result on narrower grounds.

Does the Cella ruling mean rent control can never be on a Massachusetts ballot?

No. The Supreme Judicial Court's holding was specific to Initiative Petition 25-21's religious-facility exemption, not to rent control as a subject. The Court did not rule on whether a differently drafted rent-control petition, without a clause implicating an art. 48 excluded matter, could qualify for a future ballot.

How many signatures did the Massachusetts rent control petition gather?

Organizers reported submitting more than 124,000 signatures in November 2025, and the state Elections Division certified 88,132 as valid, above the roughly 74,574 required at that stage. The Supreme Judicial Court's disqualification is independent of signature sufficiency; it rests on the petition's subject matter under art. 48.