SJC Blocks Rent-Control Initiative From 2026 Ballot — Massachusetts’s Statewide Prohibition On Rent Regulation Remains Intact

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Initiative Petition 25-21, which would have repealed the statewide ban on rent control and capped annual residential rent increases at 5% or CPI, whichever is lower, is constitutionally barred from the November 2026 ballot. The Mintz team, led by Elissa Flynn-Poppey and Edmund Daley, represented a coalition of Massachusetts voters seeking to block the Petition from the ballot.

What the Court Decided

In Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893, the Court ruled that the petition “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions,” an excluded matter under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, because it exempts “[d]welling units in facilities operated solely for . . . religious . . . purposes.” Even though the regulation of rents is not, on its own, a religious matter, the Court held that the express religious exemption made religion “a factor in [the petition’s] application” and the Petition was thus barred by Article 48. 

Key Takeaways

• Rent control stays off the 2026 ballot. Petition 25-21, which would have implemented a statewide rent control mandate of 5% or CPI, whichever is lower, will not go before the voters in November. The current statewide prohibition on rent control remains in effect.
• Religious classification is prohibited. Although Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution expressly prohibits petitions that “relate[] to religious practices or religious institutions,” the Court has not had many opportunities to weigh in on the breadth of that prohibition. Before Cella, the Court had only weighed in on the religious prohibition in Article 48 twice. The Cella opinion reinforces the rule that if religion is a factor in a petition’s application, even if the petition governs a seemingly secular area, it cannot go before the voters.
• Judicial scrutiny of ballot initiatives continues. The decision signals the Court’s willingness to enforce Article 48 limits. As the number of petitions submitted to the Attorney General increases, the Court remains willing to block petitions that do not comply with Article 48 from the ballot. 

Mintz’s appellate and government law teams are available to advise clients on appeals, election law matters, and challenges to ballot initiatives under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution.