MASSACHUSETTS — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in May 2025 that an initiative petition to impose statewide rent control cannot appear on the November ballot. The court determined that the petition impermissibly relates to religion and religious institutions, which are excluded from the initiative petition process under the state Constitution.

Justice Frank Gaziano wrote the court's decision, stating, "The petition ... concerns a generally secular subject matter -- rent control. 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.'" Gaziano wrote, "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)." He added, "Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities."

Plaintiffs in the case had claimed the petition should be disqualified because religion was a factor in the application of the law. Attorney General Andrea Campbell's summary of the petition stated it would not apply to units operated for educational, religious, or non-profit purposes. Assistant Attorney General Phoebe Fischer-Groban argued before the court that the petition was solely a rent control matter, unrelated to religious matters in ways relevant to the Convention delegates.

Justice Scott Kafker wrote a concurring opinion in the case. He stated, "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 presented." Kafker wrote, "Distinguishing for-profit from non- profit institutions does not require an analysis that relates to religion or religious institution."

Noemi "Mimi" Ramos, executive director of the New England Community Project and chair of the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, commented on the ruling. "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," Ramos said. Conor Yunits, chair and spokesman for the Housing for Massachusetts committee, said, "Today the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional." He added, "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."