Supreme Judicial Court To Hear Rent Control Opposition Case May 6
. Posted in News - 0 Comments
By Kimberly Rau, MassLandlords, Inc.
Rent control opponents are litigating to leave the rent control question off the November 2026 ballot, alleging that not only does rent control not work, but the question itself is unconstitutional. The state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will have a hearing on Tuesday, May 6.
The rent control ballot question isn’t just bad policy, it’s unconstitutional. The hearing for the case against it will be Tuesday, May 6, at the John Adams Courthouse. (Image License: CC BY-SA 4.0 MassLandlords, Inc.)
May 6 Hearing Details
The hearing for SJC-13893 against the ballot initiative will take place Tuesday, May 6, at 9 a.m. at the John Adams Courthouse, in room 1. We believe the hearing will be open to the public, subject to the usual court restrictions on recording.
MassLandlords has submitted amicus briefs urging the court to strike down the initiative.
To understand why the ballot initiative is unconstitutional, you need to know how rent control was repealed in the first place.
Chapter 40P: The Repeal of Rent Control in 1994
Voters elected to repeal rent control in 1994 after decades of bad policy harmed cities like Cambridge. In doing so, MGL Chapter 40P, which prohibited uncompensated rent control in all forms, became law. Chapter 40P states that the only permissible form of rent control must be voluntary, and cities and towns must make up the difference between the controlled rent and market rent.
To enact mandatory statewide rent control again, the ballot question must remove Chapter 40P from the General Laws.
Chapter 40P Guarantees Compensation, Cannot Be Decided by Popular Vote
According to the state constitution, religious matters, court matters and the right to compensation for public use of private property may not be decided by ballot initiative.
If passed, the ballot question would delete Chapter 40P. When the ballot initiative was first proposed, The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute was asked if the ballot question would include an explanation of what deleting Chapter 40P would entail. Andrea Park, a housing attorney at MLRI, said “no” because explaining it would “cause confusion.”
The plaintiffs are arguing that mandatory statewide rent control is a form of public use of private property, and therefore, the rent control question is unconstitutional and should not be allowed on the ballot.
What You Can Do To Help Stop Rent Control
Fighting rent control is going to take time and money. We have set aside approximately $50,000 to fund our amicus brief. The main litigation is expected to cost six times as much. We are hopeful that the courts will see our position and remove the ballot question. If they do not, we are preparing to fight rent control all the way to the ballot box.
Members are encouraged to volunteer your time to fight rent control, and donate a portion of your gross monthly rents toward our effort. Together, we can keep bad policy where it belongs: in the past.
