Mintz Secures SJC Victory Blocking Rent Control Ballot Question from Massachusetts Ballot

The Situation

Mintz was engaged to represent a coalition of Massachusetts voters, developers, real estate trade association, and landlords in a high‑stakes constitutional challenge to Initiative Petition 25‑21, a proposed ballot measure that would have repealed the Commonwealth’s longstanding ban on rent control and replacing it with the most restrictive rent control law in the country by implementing a mandatory a statewide cap on residential rent increases. A 2026 study by the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University found that if this rent control proposal were enacted, property values would decline by nearly 14% over the following decade, resulting in an estimated $300 billion loss for homeowners and property owners.

The ballot question sought to limit annual rent increases to the lesser of 5% or the Consumer Price Index, a policy change with significant implications for landlords, tenants, and the broader housing market. 

However, the proposed ballot question also contained an exemption for certain housing operated for solely religious purposes. This rent control exclusion favoring housing operating for religious purposes raised concerns about whether the initiative violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which prohibits ballot measures that “relate to religion, religious practices or religious institutions.”

Mintz challenged the petition before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the religious exemption rendered the ballot question constitutionally defective and ineligible for placement on the statewide ballot.

The Approach

Led by Elissa Flynn-Poppey and Ed Daley, Mintz developed a targeted constitutional litigation strategy centered on the Article 48 limitations governing ballot questions. The team argued that even though rent regulation is a secular policy matter, the ballot question’s explicit exemption for religious housing made religion a factor in how the law would operate by imposing an intrusive and potentially divisive religious inquiry into whether a property is being solely for religious purposes, bringing it squarely within Article 48’s prohibition.  Mintz emphasized that the constitutional restriction applies not only to laws primarily about religion, but also to laws that condition their application on religious status or classification.

Drawing on limited but important precedent interpreting Article 48’s religion clause, Mintz framed the case as an opportunity for the SJC to reaffirm the constitutional requirement that proposed ballot questions that relate to religion cannot be submitted to the voters. The team successfully demonstrated that allowing the measure to proceed would expand the scope of permissible initiatives beyond constitutional limits.

The Outcome

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Mintz’s arguments and held that Initiative Petition 25‑21 is constitutionally barred from the November 2026 ballot. The Court concluded that the proposal “relates to religion” because its exemption for religious housing makes religion “a factor in [the petition’s] application,” thereby violating Article 48.

As a result, the Court blocked the rent‑control initiative from going before voters, preserving the Commonwealth’s existing statewide prohibition on rent control.

The decision represents a significant appellate victory and underscores the SJC’s willingness to enforce constitutional limits on ballot initiatives. It also provides important clarity on the scope of Article 48, reinforcing that even indirect religious classifications can render a proposed initiative invalid.

Mintz’s successful advocacy not only achieved a decisive outcome for its clients but also established a meaningful precedent shaping the future of election law and ballot initiative challenges in Massachusetts.