The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the rent control ballot question, Initiative Petition 25-21, cannot go on the November 2026 statewide ballot. The reason was not rent control itself. It was an exemption for facilities run solely for religious purposes, which made the measure one that “relates to religion,” a subject the state constitution keeps off the ballot. This is a published decision of the Supreme Judicial Court and binding statewide.
What happened
In 2025, a group of voters filed a petition titled “An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases.” It would have repealed the state law that bans rent control, G.L. c. 40P, and capped yearly rent increases on most residential units at the lower of the rise in the Consumer Price Index or five percent. The cap had five exemptions, including small owner-occupied buildings and units in facilities operated solely for educational, religious, or nonprofit purposes. The Attorney General certified the petition in September 2025, and its backers gathered signatures. Four registered voters then sued the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, arguing the petition should never have been certified.
What the court decided
In Cella v. Attorney General, SJC-13893 (Mass. June 23, 2026), the court held that the petition violates the excluded matters section of article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. That section, art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 2, says no measure that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions may be proposed by initiative petition. The Attorney General may certify a petition only if every subject in it is outside that excluded list.
The court relied on its two earlier cases on this clause. In Opinion of the Justices, 309 Mass. 555 (1941), the Justices found that a contraception measure did not relate to religion because it dealt with a secular field and religion was not a factor in how it applied. In Collins v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 407 Mass. 837 (1990), the court found that a law changing the exemptions for religious institutions from antidiscrimination rules did relate to religion, so it could not go to a referendum.
The court said the rent petition looked like Collins. Rent control is a secular subject. But the religious facilities exemption makes religion a factor in how the law applies. To enforce it, the government would have to decide whether a facility is operated solely for religious purposes. The exemption would also let religious facilities raise rents while secular landlords could not.
The court rejected the Attorney General’s two main arguments. First, the fact that the petition also exempted educational and nonprofit facilities did not change the analysis. Second, the court refused to apply a “main purpose” test, which asks whether the petition is mostly about an excluded subject. The court has used that test for the clause about the powers of courts, but declined to use it here. Petition writers, the court said, can easily avoid the problem by leaving religious terms out.
The court sent the case back for a judgment declaring the petition out of compliance with article 48 and barring the Secretary from placing it on the 2026 ballot. One Justice concurred on narrower grounds. Because the court decided the case on the religion clause, it did not reach the challengers’ other arguments.
What this means for you
If you are a tenant hoping for a statewide cap on rent increases this year, this ruling means voters will not decide that question in November 2026. The state ban on rent control in G.L. c. 40P stays in place for now.
The decision does not say rent control is unconstitutional. It does not say voters can never take up the issue. It turns on drafting. The court made clear that a future petition can avoid this result by leaving out any terms that deal with religion. Rent limits could also come from the Legislature.
In the meantime, your existing protections still apply. A landlord who wants to raise your rent generally must give you proper written notice, and with a lease usually must wait until it ends. A rent increase cannot be used to punish you for asking for repairs, calling the Board of Health, or organizing with other tenants. Retaliation is illegal under G.L. c. 186, § 18, and it can be a defense to an eviction under G.L. c. 239, § 2A.
What to do now
- Read your lease. If you have a lease for a set term, your rent usually cannot go up until it ends unless the lease allows it.
- Keep every notice of a rent increase or notice to quit, with the date you got it.
- If a large increase comes soon after you complained about conditions or joined a tenant group, write down the dates. Timing matters in a retaliation claim.
- Do not ignore a summary process summons. Missing your court date can lead to a default judgment against you.
- Talk to a lawyer before you sign anything in court.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
