The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against the town of Marshfield in a significant case regarding local zoning laws and housing regulations. The court's decision, issued on September 18, 2026, dismissed Marshfield's challenge to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Communities Act (MBTA Act). This ruling affects Marshfield and other municipalities served by the MBTA, as it reinforces the requirement for these towns to permit multifamily housing as a right in at least one district.
The MBTA Act was enacted in 2021 to address a housing crisis in Massachusetts. It mandates that certain communities, including Marshfield, must adopt zoning bylaws that allow for multifamily housing. Marshfield's select board had attempted to comply with the act but failed to pass the necessary amendments during town meetings. The board then opted not to pursue compliance further, leading to the lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC).
The town of Marshfield and its select board filed a civil action in the Superior Court on February 27, 2025, claiming that the MBTA Act imposed an unfunded local mandate and violated their constitutional rights. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the act infringed upon their autonomy and voting rights. The Commonwealth and HLC moved to dismiss the case, and the Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the defendants, prompting Marshfield to appeal.
The Supreme Judicial Court, led by Justice Georges, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Marshfield did not adequately demonstrate that the MBTA Act imposed an unfunded mandate, stating, "The complaint does not plausibly allege that the MBTA Act or its regulations imposed on Marshfield an unfunded local mandate within the meaning of § 27C." Additionally, the court ruled that Marshfield lacked standing to assert a voting rights claim on behalf of its town meeting voters.
In its ruling, the court addressed several key arguments made by Marshfield. First, the court examined the claim of an unfunded local mandate. Marshfield argued that the costs incurred in evaluating and preparing zoning amendments exceeded incidental local administration expenses. However, the court concluded that the costs were voluntary and did not constitute a mandatory obligation imposed by the MBTA Act.
Furthermore, the court addressed Marshfield's assertion that the MBTA Act violated the Home Rule Amendment, which grants municipalities the authority to govern local matters. The court ruled that the MBTA Act does not infringe upon this authority, as it addresses a statewide concern—the housing crisis—and is therefore a valid general law. The court stated, "The MBTA Act addresses the Commonwealth's housing crisis, a subject not confined to any one municipality. That subject falls squarely within the Legislature's retained authority under the Home Rule Amendment."
The court also rejected Marshfield's argument that the MBTA Act conflicted with the Zoning Act, noting that the act does not displace existing procedures for amending local zoning bylaws. Instead, it imposes a substantive requirement that the resulting zoning must satisfy. The court emphasized that town meeting voters retain the authority to debate and vote on zoning proposals, but they cannot exempt the town from complying with valid state laws.
This ruling has significant implications for Marshfield and other municipalities served by the MBTA. It reinforces the requirement for these towns to comply with the MBTA Act, which aims to increase the availability of multifamily housing in response to the ongoing housing crisis in Massachusetts. The court's decision may encourage other municipalities to reconsider their zoning practices and explore compliance with state housing regulations.
Looking ahead, Marshfield could potentially appeal the ruling, but the court's decision sets a strong precedent for the enforcement of the MBTA Act. The ruling also highlights the balance between local governance and state mandates in addressing pressing issues like housing. As the housing crisis continues to affect many communities, this case may influence future legal challenges related to zoning and housing regulations in Massachusetts.