The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on June 23, 2026, that an initiative petition aimed at limiting rent increases cannot be placed on the November 2026 ballot. The court found that the petition, titled "An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases," improperly included exemptions for facilities operated for religious purposes. This decision affects voters and advocates in Massachusetts who sought to address the ongoing housing crisis.
The case, Cella v. Attorney General (SJC 13893), arose when a group of registered voters challenged the Attorney General's certification of the initiative petition. They argued that the petition's religious exemption violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which prohibits initiatives related to religion. The court's ruling emphasizes the separation of church and state in the context of legislative initiatives.
The plaintiffs in the case included four registered voters from Massachusetts: Arcangelo Cella, Teresa del Signore, Katherine Horey, and Susan M. Renfrew. They filed their complaint against the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth on February 6, 2026, after the Attorney General certified the initiative petition. The petition aimed to limit annual rent increases to the lower of the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index or five percent, while exempting certain types of residential units, including those operated for religious purposes.
The Attorney General had initially certified the petition as compliant with the requirements of Article 48, which governs the initiative process in Massachusetts. The certification allowed the petition to proceed to the next steps in the ballot process, including gathering signatures from voters. However, the plaintiffs contended that the religious exemption invalidated the petition under the state's constitutional law.
In its ruling, the court stated, "the petition relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions," which are excluded matters under Article 48. The court concluded that the exemption for religious facilities made the petition ineligible for the ballot. The justices noted that the inclusion of a religious exemption would require the government to determine whether a facility is operated solely for religious purposes, thus bringing religious considerations into the political sphere.
The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of Article 48, which aims to prevent the introduction of religious matters into the political process. The ruling emphasized that the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution intended to keep religion separate from politics to avoid divisive public debates. The court referenced previous cases, including Collins v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, which established that any initiative petition that relates to religion is subject to exclusion under Article 48.
Going forward, this ruling has significant implications for future initiative petitions in Massachusetts. It reinforces the idea that any proposed law that includes religious exemptions or considerations may face legal challenges and could be barred from the ballot. This decision may deter future initiatives that attempt to address social issues while incorporating religious elements.
The court's ruling also serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in balancing tenant rights and religious freedoms. Advocates for tenant protections may need to find alternative approaches that do not involve religious exemptions to ensure compliance with Massachusetts law.
The plaintiffs in this case expressed disappointment with the ruling, as they believed the initiative was a necessary step to address the housing crisis in Massachusetts. They argued that limiting rent increases would provide much-needed relief to tenants facing rising housing costs. However, the court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional guidelines when proposing legislative changes.
As for what’s next, the plaintiffs may consider appealing the ruling or exploring other avenues to bring similar initiatives to the ballot in the future. They may also seek to engage with lawmakers to craft legislation that addresses tenant protections without infringing upon the constitutional provisions regarding religion.