The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled a ballot question seeking to bring rent control back to Massachusetts cannot go forward this November, because it includes a religious exemption.
The proposal limits annual rent increases for residences, but it carved out exemptions for several types of units, including ones “operated solely for … religious … purposes.” As a result, the court said it concluded the petition “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions,” which the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow to go before voters.
The ruling ends what promised to be one of the most expensive ballot initiative showdowns in Massachusetts this year.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office had argued it properly certified the petition because the question did not discriminate in favor of religious institutions, and pointed to exemptions for units that would be considered secular.
But the court’s ruling said the existence of secular exemptions does not change the fact that the proposal has a carveout for religious facilities.
In Rhode Island, rent control has this year been the subject of an intense political fight in Providence. The city council passed a measure that would cap annual rent increases at 4% for most apartments in Providence, with exemptions for smaller, owner-occupied buildings and recently constructed units. But Mayor Brett Smiley vetoed the law, and the council fell one vote short of the 10-vote super majority it needed to override.
In Massachusetts, four voters who oppose rent control brought the lawsuit before the Supreme Judicial Court.
In recent weeks, rent control supporters pushed for a compromise bill, urging state lawmakers to pass it as legislation before July 1. But top lawmakers balked, in part because the Supreme Judicial Court hadn’t yet ruled.
“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,” Conor Yunits, who led the real estate industry-backed ballot committee opposing the question, said in a statement.
“We are incredibly grateful to the countless small property owners, real estate professionals, elected officials, and community leaders who supported our coalition,” he wrote, adding, “and we look forward to working together to create more homes and tackle affordability through real policy solutions.”
In a statement, Noemi Ramos, who headed up the pro-rent control ballot committee, called the decision a “massive disappointment” but “far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes.”
She and other proponents hinted they could try to get another rent control petition on the 2028 statewide ballot. Ramos wrote the court’s issue with the current question is “easily fixable.”
The seven-member Supreme Judicial Court has played a major role this ballot cycle, knocking down some ballot questions and giving others the go-ahead as lawsuits from opponents landed in their laps. Earlier this month, the court blocked an effort to lower the state’s income tax while allowing measures that would end recreational marijuana shops and overhaul the state’s primary election system.
Massachusetts voters are still likely to see a jam-packed ballot when they enter the polling booth in November, with up to eight questions.
In addition to the marijuana measure and the primary system overhaul, other potential questions for this year’s ballot include ones dealing with a proposed increase in tax rebates, Election Day voter registration and the placement of the governor’s office and the Legislature under the state’s public records law.
Massachusetts voters could also weigh in on a gun law repeal, collective bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services workers, zoning for starter homes and the dedication of funds for recreation and outdoor spaces.
This article was originally published by WBUR on June 23, 2026. Additional material from previous Ocean State Media coverage was used in this story.
