Religious clause dooms rent control ballot question

In brief

• The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled the rent control ballot initiative cannot proceed.
• The court found the proposal’s exemption for religious housing facilities improperly made religion a factor in the law’s application.
• The initiative sought to repeal the state’s 1994 rent control ban and cap annual rent increases at inflation or 5 percent, whichever was lower.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled on June 23 that the initiative petition to repeal the state’s three-decade ban on rent control cannot move forward.

The unanimous court determined the proposal to impose statewide rent control “impermissibly” relates to religion and religious institutions, which are among the matters the state Constitution sets as out of bounds from the initiative petition process.

The ruling ends, at least for 2026, a high-profile effort to cap annual rent increases across Massachusetts. The initiative petition would have repealed the state’s 1994 ban on rent control and limited yearly increases on most residential units to the lower of inflation or 5 percent.

The petition states that it would not apply to housing units in “facilities operated solely for … religious … purposes.” The plaintiffs claimed the petition should be disqualified because “religion is a factor in the application of the law,” citing a legal precedent that is key to the court’s ruling.

“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.’ 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),” Justice Frank Gaziano wrote for the court. “Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities.”

Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell had certified the question for the ballot, under a process that she has called “stupid” and said needs to be “revamped.” Her office had argued that the petition was just a rent control matter.

On GBH Radio about an hour after the SJC’s decision came down, Campbell acknowledged the court “ruled against us and said we got that wrong.” She said her office “went into the hearing understanding” that the court may focus on the relationship between the petition and religion.

“But we said to the court at the time, ‘The initiative exempts a number of types of housing, including nonprofit housing.’ And the exemption for religious uses was a minor one within the broader petition. The court disagreed and said that even a minor reference to religion is not appropriate for a ballot initiative,” Campbell said. “I think it was only the second time that the court has reviewed this standard, so it’s not like it happens frequently. We were surprised, but of course we will follow the court’s ruling and move forward. And this ballot question will not move forward to the ballot.”

Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote a concurrence in which he agreed that the petition cannot go forward, but wrote that he would not have held that any religious distinction dooms a ballot question. He added that he is “aware of no other State that has such a religion exclusion” in its initiative petition process.

Instead, he focused on how the rent control question would require the government to decide whether a unit is run solely for religious purposes, forcing “a deep dive” into a religious institution’s finances, motives, and practices — an intrusive inquiry he said the Constitution forbids.

“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 been presented. Distinguishing for-profit from non-profit institutions does not require an analysis that relates to religion or religious institutions,” Kafker wrote.

The 27-page decision is Cella, et al. v. Attorney General, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 10-071-26.

The plaintiffs’ Boston attorneys Edmund Daley and Elissa Flynn-Poppey said in a statement that the decision “underscores the importance of […] structural limitations in the initiative process.”

“Our approach focused on this threshold constitutional issue, demonstrating that even broadly framed policy proposals must satisfy the specific requirements and exclusions set forth in the Constitution,” Daley and Flynn-Poppey said.

Rent control boosters called the SJC decision “a massive disappointment” but said also that “it’s far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes.”

“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,” Noemi “Mimi” Ramos, executive director of New England Community Project and chair of the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, said.

Rent control supporters plan to gather outside the State House on June 24 to discuss the court decision and urge legislators to pass a bill “that would enable municipalities to adopt local option rent stabilization policies.”

Supporters of the question saw it as instituting a needed lid on rising tenant costs that are a major contributor to the affordability woes facing residents. Gov. Maura T. Healey and legislative leaders opposed the proposal, echoing claims by the real estate industry that controls on rent would discourage needed housing production.

“Today the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional. 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, chair and spokesman for the Housing for Massachusetts committee formed to oppose the ballot question, said.