The SJC ruled the Act is not an unfunded mandate, does not violate local voting rights, does not contravene the Massachusetts Home Rule Amendment, and does not conflict with existing zoning procedures.

The decision affirms MBTA-served municipalities must have at least one reasonably sized zoning district where multifamily housing is allowed “as of right.” The case is Town of Marshfield et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al., No. SJC-13840, slip op. (Mass. Sept. 18, 2026).

The MBTA Communities Act in 2021 addressed the statewide housing shortage, seen as a crisis, by requiring 177 cities and towns known as “MBTA communities,” served directly or indirectly by the MBTA, to create and maintain at least one zoning district of “reasonable size” where multifamily housing can be built as-of-right” without needing special permits or other discretionary zoning approvals. Noncompliant communities become ineligible for certain state grants, including Housing Choice and MassWorks programs.

Following the SJC’s decision in Attorney General v. Milton, 495 Mass. 183, 248 N.E.3d 635 (2025), which invalidated earlier state guidelines for procedural defects, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) promulgated emergency regulations effective January 14, 2025, requiring interim action plans by February 13, 2025, and compliance by July 14, 2025. These rules cured the procedural glitches and put the program fully into effect.

On April 22 and December 16, 2024, Marshfield held special town meetings on proposed bylaw amendments drafted to comply with the Act, but both proposals failed. On February 10, 2025, Marshfield’s Select Board voted unanimously not to submit an interim action plan, and on February 19, 2025, the HLC notified Marshfield that it was noncompliant and at risk of losing state grant funding.

Marshfield and its Select Board sued. Plymouth Superior Court dismissed the Town’s case, and the SJC took direct appellate review and affirmed the dismissal. The decision is important on the principles of Home Rule as applied to the innovative approach in the MBTA Communities Act to improve the stock of housing in Massachusetts.

1. Unfunded Local Mandate

To constitute an illegal unfunded local mandate under state law, which cities and towns may challenge to invalidate, a statute must be proven to change existing law and impose a mandatory “direct service or cost obligation” on a municipality beyond incidental administrative costs. Marshfield argued it incurred costs to evaluate and draft zoning bylaws and to present them at Town Meetings.

The SJC held that these allegations did not show unavoidable, mandatory expenditures rather than incidental local administration or costs voluntarily assumed in pursuing the Town’s preferred path to compliance. Allegations of future “direct” costs were deemed conclusory and too speculative, whether tied to further bylaw efforts or to future municipal services from later development.

Ultimately the Court ruled that Marshfield’s complaint did not cross the plausibility threshold necessary to show the Act imposed non-incidental, mandatory costs on the Town.

2. Standing to Assert Town Meeting Constitutional Rights

Marshfield and its Select Board argued the MBTA Communities Act infringed Town Meeting voters’ constitutional rights. The SJC did not rule on the merits of this point because the Town lacked standing and as a political subdivision could not assert constitutional claims against the Commonwealth. The SJC based its decision on the proposition that constitutional protections belong to “persons” who are generally considered independent of the Commonwealth.

The SJC further ruled that the Select Board members, suing only in their official capacities without demonstrating personal injury, also lacked standing. The SJC referenced the general rule that public officers generally cannot challenge the constitutionality of a statute. A personal injury to the members acting in their individual capacity and not their official capacity would be required for standing.

3. Home Rule Authority

The Massachusetts’ Home Rule Amendment is part of the state Constitution which provides, in general, that cities and towns can run their own local affairs, without needing the Legislature to give permission for every local program or action, as long as it does not conflict with the Massachusetts Constitution or with state law.

Although the SJC found the Home Rule argument to be waived by Marshfield, it addressed it due to its public importance. The SJC ruled that the MBTA Communities Act is a valid general law which addresses the statewide housing crisis and therefore falls within the Legislature’s retained authority under the Home Rule Amendment.

The SJC made clear that a municipality may challenge a statute for purporting to violate the Home Rule Amendment, but that the Amendment does not prevent the Legislature, through a valid general law addressing a matter of statewide concern, from imposing substantive requirements that municipalities must implement through existing local procedures.

As a result, municipalities retain local procedural control over many subjects but cannot use local lawmaking to frustrate valid state housing mandates adopted as a general law addressing a statewide concern.

4. Zoning Act Procedures

Marshfield argued that the MBTA Communities Act compels a “yes” vote at Town Meeting, conflicting with G.L. c. 40A, §5, which governs how zoning bylaws are adopted or amended. The SJC disagreed and found the Act imposes a substantive statewide requirement but does not displace Section 5’s local procedures as Town Meeting retains the procedural authority to debate, amend, approve, or reject proposals, though it cannot be exempt from valid state law.

The SJC explained that the consequence of rejecting a valid compliant rezoning proposal constitutes noncompliance with the MBTA Act, not a conflict between the Act and Section 5. By voting “no” at Town Meeting, the Town did not remove the statutory obligation to comply under the Act. Rather it led to the consequences of noncompliance.

Conclusion

The MBTA Communities Act is a valid statute. “MBTA Communities” should expect to see more housing coming to their neighborhoods near mass transit. Non-compliant cities and towns can expect the state to continue enforcing the Act with a firm hand.

Under the Act multifamily housing must be allowed as-of-right in at least one zoning district of the size and density the Act provides. Such projects proceeding “as-of-right” cannot be required to obtain special permits, variances, waivers, zoning amendments, or other discretionary zoning approvals.

Developers of new housing, builders, lenders financing them, landowners in the new zoning districts, property managers, legal counsel for all of them, and housing advocates are now prioritizing sites mapped within the as-of-right multifamily districts.

It is recommended to work with an attorney familiar with the Act, the state regulations, the related Affordable Housing Act and recent Zoning Act amendments, to understand their new procedures and criteria for much-needed housing.

McGregor Law Group PC can assist with questions about proposed projects, land developability, due diligence, legal rights and responsibilities, applications and hearings, appeals, and transactions to approved projects into fruition.

David Henig is a Senior Associate of the firm.