12/23/2025
Massachusetts’ highest court recently agreed to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the MBTA Communities Act, a controversial law that forces nearly every municipality in eastern Massachusetts to allow multi-family housing in one zoning district as of right.
The challenger this time is the Town of Marshfield. Before Marshfield, the Town of Milton held a referendum on a proposed bylaw that would put Milton in compliance with the act. Milton voters said no and the state attorney general promptly sued Milton. The case made its way up to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). Milton argued that the MBTA Communities Act illegally deprives municipalities of the right to make independent zoning decisions. The SJC disagreed and ruled that the MBTA Communities Act is constitutional.
Marshfield similarly presented to voters a bylaw to put the town in compliance with the act. At two town meetings, the legislation was rejected. The state notified Marshfield that it was not in compliance and began taking retaliatory action pursuant to the law, including cutting a dredging project grant and refusing to award one for educational funding.
In the meantime, several other communities (City of Methuen, Town of Middleborough, and Town of Wrentham) requested an opinion from the Office of the State Auditor on whether the MBTA Communities Act constitutes an illegal “unfunded mandate.” The Office of the State Auditor said yes and, in response, Marshfield petitioned the Superior Court for an exemption from compliance until the Commonwealth provides sufficient funding to comply with the legislation. The Superior Court rejected the petition.
On appeal to the SJC, in addition to arguing the law is an unfunded mandate, Marshfield is also arguing that the statute disenfranchises town meeting voters by requiring them to vote yes on a compliant zoning bylaw.
The case is currently being briefed, and oral argument is scheduled for February. The outcome could result in a ruling that the MBTA Communities Act is unconstitutional, or at a minimum could result in limitations on its applicability. Medford chose compliance. In 2023, the Council approved creation of an overlay zoning district for Wellington. The state reviewed the amendment and determined officially that Medford was in compliance.
Marshfield, Milton, and the other municipalities that have challenged the law deserve kudos. In my opinion the law is indeed unconstitutional. The Milton case was wrongly decided, and I believe Marshfield’s arguments are meritorious. The litigation also provides stark contrast between Medford and its municipal neighbors. Marshfield is challenging the constitutionality of a law before the highest court in the state. Meanwhile in Medford, we don’t even have a city solicitor.
