The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has blocked a proposed statewide rent control initiative from appearing on the November 2026 ballot, handing housing providers a significant win in a case where the California Apartment Association urged the court to scrutinize the measure’s sweeping reach.

The ruling keeps off the ballot a proposal that would have repealed Massachusetts’ existing ban on rent control and replaced it with a statewide cap on annual rent increases. The measure would have limited rent increases for most rental housing to the lesser of inflation or 5% and eliminated vacancy decontrol.

The court did not reach the constitutional takings concerns raised in CAA’s amicus brief. Instead, it resolved the case on a narrower issue under Massachusetts law: whether the initiative improperly related to religion.

Under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, certain subjects cannot be advanced through the initiative process, including measures that relate to religion, religious practices or religious institutions. The rent control proposal included an exemption for dwelling units in facilities operated solely for educational, religious or nonprofit purposes.

That exemption proved fatal.

The court concluded that the language would make religion a factor in applying the law by requiring government officials to determine whether a facility was operated solely for religious purposes. Because of that religious exemption, the court ruled that the measure could not go before voters.

For California housing providers, the distinction matters. The decision rests on a specific feature of Massachusetts constitutional law. California does not have the same kind of legal limit on ballot measures relating to religion.

Still, the result is welcome news. The measure would have imposed one of the nation’s most aggressive statewide rent control regimes, including strict rent caps and no vacancy decontrol — going well beyond the guardrails that exist in California under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

CAA’s amicus brief focused on those broader constitutional concerns, warning that a sudden shift from no rent control to near-universal rent regulation could disrupt reasonable investment-backed expectations and raise serious takings issues.

Although the court resolved the case on other grounds, the decision prevents a sweeping rent control measure from reaching the ballot and adds to a growing national debate over how far governments can go in regulating rental housing.

CAA has been active in that debate in California and beyond. In recent years, the association has filed briefs in major cases arising out of New York, Washington state and Massachusetts involving constitutional limits on rent control, eviction restrictions and other policies that place the burden of housing affordability on rental property owners.

CAA will continue to engage in cases that could shape housing law wherever they might arise, especially where aggressive regulation threatens rental housing providers’ property rights.