Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a ballot proposal for the strictest statewide rent control in the US, citing a constitutional violation tied to an exception for religious housing. The measure aimed to cap rent increases at 5% or the Consumer Price Index, whichever was lower. The ruling blocks the proposal from appearing on November ballots, dealing a setback to tenant advocates pushing for relief in one of the nation’s costliest states.

The court’s decision followed intense opposition from real estate developers, who warned the limits would stifle housing construction. Tenant groups argued renters desperately needed protections amid soaring costs. Pre-ruling talks hinted at a potential compromise, but the court instead focused on the constitutional flaw. This marks the second time in under a week the court invalidated a ballot measure with broad economic consequences, after previously rejecting a state income-tax cut proposal. The pattern suggests growing judicial scrutiny of policies perceived as economically disruptive.

The ruling underscores the tension between affordability demands and market realities. With housing costs surging in Massachusetts, the absence of statewide controls may force cities to pursue fragmented solutions. Developers could leverage the ruling to oppose similar measures elsewhere, while advocates may rally for localized reforms. The decision leaves renters without a statewide safety net, potentially exacerbating inequalities in a state where median rent exceeds $2,500 monthly. This judicial intervention highlights how legal frameworks can shape housing policy outcomes, balancing competing interests in a polarized policy landscape.