Massachusetts voters will not decide on a proposed rent-control law this fall after the state’s highest court ruled that the ballot question was unconstitutional. According to reporting cited from the Boston Business Journal, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the measure’s treatment of religious institutions rendered the proposal invalid.
The court found that the proposed law included an exemption for properties owned by religious organizations, which would have meant that some buildings were automatically excluded from rent-control regulations based solely on the owner’s religious status. In its decision, the court said this structure would have impermissibly made religion a factor in determining whether a property was covered or exempt, conflicting with constitutional standards.
The initiative had drawn significant attention from both the real estate industry and advocates focused on housing affordability and the region’s elevated cost of living. Industry trade group NAIOP Massachusetts, along with other real estate interests, opposed the ballot question, while supporters viewed the measure as a tool to respond to mounting rent pressures.
If it had reached the ballot and passed in November, the proposal would have reintroduced rent control to Massachusetts for the first time since it was eliminated by a 1994 voter referendum. The new framework would have tied annual rent increases to the cost of living, with a hard cap of 5% per year, limiting landlords’ ability to raise rents more rapidly.
Under the proposed formula, a unit renting for $2,000 per month could have seen an annual increase of no more than $100. The measure would have placed Massachusetts among a small group of states with statewide rent-control or rent-cap regimes, joining California and Oregon, which were specifically cited as comparables.
With the court’s ruling, that regulatory shift will not occur under this particular ballot initiative, and any future attempt to reinstate rent control in Massachusetts will have to address the constitutional concerns identified around religious exemptions. The decision leaves the current market-based framework for rents intact for now, even as debate over housing costs and regulatory responses continues.
