Court Rules Religious Exemption Is Unconstitutional
In a major decision affecting the future of Massachusetts housing policy, the Supreme Judicial Court today has ruled that the proposed statewide rent control ballot initiative may not appear on the November 2026 ballot. This is a huge victory for housing providers across the state, and a staggering defeat for rent control proponents.
The case, Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893 (embedded below), involved Initiative Petition 25-21, titled “An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases.” The petition would have repealed the Commonwealth’s existing statutory ban on rent control, G.L. c. 40P, and replaced it with a statewide cap on annual rent increases for most residential rental units.
Under the proposed law, annual rent increases would have been limited to the lesser of the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index or 5%. The petition included several exemptions, including owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units, newly constructed units less than 10 years old, certain publicly regulated units, short-term rentals, and dwelling units in facilities operated solely for educational, religious, or nonprofit purposes.
That last religious exemption proved fatal, according to the SJC justices.
Article 48 Bars Initiative Petitions Relating To Religion
Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution gives voters the power to propose laws by initiative petition. But that power is not unlimited. Certain subjects are excluded from the initiative process altogether. One of those excluded subjects is any measure that “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions.”
The SJC held that the rent control petition crossed that constitutional line because it expressly exempted dwelling units in facilities operated solely for religious purposes. Although rent control itself is a secular subject, the Court ruled that the petition made religion a factor in the law’s application.
Justice Gaziano, writing for the Court, explained that enforcement of the proposed law would require government officials to determine whether a facility was operated solely for religious purposes.” That inquiry, the Court reasoned, would necessarily require the government to make enforcement decisions based on a facility’s religious purpose or lack of religious purpose. Because of that religious exemption, the Court concluded that the petition “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions” and therefore cannot be placed on the ballot.
The Court Rejected The “Main Purpose” Argument
The Attorney General argued that the petition’s main purpose was rent control, not religion, and therefore should not be excluded from the ballot.
The SJC rejected that argument.
The Court distinguished cases involving other excluded matters, such as petitions affecting the powers of the courts, where a “main purpose” test may apply. The Court declined to apply that test to the religion exclusion. Instead, it held that if an initiative petition by its own terms deals with religion, religious practices, or religious institutions, it is excluded from the initiative process.
In practical terms, the Court held that proponents could have avoided the problem by drafting the petition without language expressly turning on religious status or religious purpose.
Justice Kafker’s Narrower Concurrence
Justice Kafker concurred in the result, but wrote separately to emphasize narrower grounds.
In his view, the problem was not merely that the petition mentioned religion. Rather, the specific phrase “operated solely for . . . religious . . . purposes” would invite an intrusive inquiry into the internal affairs, motives, beliefs, practices, and finances of religious institutions.
Justice Kafker suggested that a different exemption, such as one based simply on nonprofit status rather than religious purpose, may have presented a different constitutional question.
What This Means For Massachusetts Property Owners And Tenants
The immediate result is clear: the proposed rent control initiative will not appear on the November 2026 statewide ballot. Rent control is now dead, unless the Legislature passes another version of the law, and there have been discussions about that recently. However, those discussions were based on the assumption that the measure would be on the ballot this November. Now that it’s not I would predict that the real estate industry will not be so quick to negotiate with tenant groups, nor should they be, since rent control is a failed policy.
For landlords, property owners, lenders, developers, and real estate professionals, the decision removes, at least for now, the prospect of a statewide rent control ballot campaign that would have dramatically altered the Massachusetts rental housing market. We all can draw a huge sigh of relief, and focus on a reasoned, measured public policy debate at the State House and in every community.
Cella v. Attorney General Mass. SJC-13893 | Rent Control Ballot Initiative by Richard Vetstein
