The John Adams Courthouse, seat of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is shown from Pemberton Square in downtown Boston in 2021. Photo by Sam Doran | State House News Service
The highest court in Massachusetts shot down the town of Marshfield’s search for an exemption from the MBTA Communities Act Friday afternoon.
The zoning reform, passed in 2021, required the 175 towns and cities in or near MBTA train stations to zone areas for moderately dense multifamily zoning. Communities were given the ability to zone areas of existing multifamily housing or update existing zoning to comply.
Marshfield officials sued the state in February 2025 after town voters twice rejected zoning plans to comply with the MBTA Communities Act instead of trying a third time.
The town argued the law was an “unfunded mandate,” that the law violated Town Meeting voters’ rights and that it ran contrary to the state’s Chapter 40A zoning laws and municipalities’ home rule powers.
The case reached the Supreme Judicial Court late last year, which issued its 22-page ruling early Friday afternoon dismissing Marshfield’s lawsuit.
Supreme Judicial Court justices found the town presented no facts to support its claims about an “unfunded mandate” as defined by state law, concluded that the town lacks standing to sue on behalf of Town Meeting voters and upheld the validity of the MBTA Communities Act.
Much of the town’s argument rested on a declaration by state Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office that, because the Legislature didn’t provide dedicated funding to help towns write new zoning – instead, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities offered or arranged for grants covering those expenses – the MBTA Communities Act was an “unfunded mandate” under state law. But that declaration didn’t show that the town was forced to spend money in particular ways.
“[T]he complaint alleges only that Marshfield incurred costs to evaluate and draft compliant zoning bylaws,” the justices wrote. “It does not describe the nature, amount, or necessity of those costs in a way that plausibly suggests they were unavoidable expenditures required by the MBTA Act, rather than incidental local
administration expenses or costs Marshfield chose to incur in pursuing its preferred path to compliance.”
The court’s decision added that claims multifamily housing would freight the town with additional costs down the line, like providing additional municipal services, were “too conclusory and speculative” to carry weight in court.
“Massachusetts has a housing crisis, and it’s impacting everything from our ability to grow our workforce to the everyday cost of living,” Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in a statement. “Today’s decision by the SJC rejects Marshfield’s claim that the MBTA Communities Law is an unfunded mandate and reaffirms that the Law is constitutional and compliance is mandatory. I’m grateful to the 168 MBTA communities that have already taken steps to comply with the law and are doing their part to address this crisis, including developing more than 10,000 units as a direct result of the law. My office will continue to enforce the law and provide guidance to municipalities so that we can meet our housing needs.”
Campbell’s office defended the state in this case and in Milton’s court challenge, decided by the SJC last year. The state attorney general’s office is also in charge of forcing compliance with the MBTA Communities law through the state courts.
An attorney with the law firm representing the town of Marshfield in the case, Galvin & Galvin, said it “will be reviewing the import and effect of the decision within the coming days.”
“This is helpful guidance but does not make local communities feel better about recent state action restricting traditionally local zoning authority,” Robert W. Galvin said in an email regarding the SJC’s ruling upholding the MBTA Communities Act’s legality.
The town has passed a zoning district that complies with the law since filing its suit, Galvin said.
Jacob Love, general counsel for policy at housing advocacy group CHAPA, told Banker & Tradesman he was heartened by the SJC’s move to back lower court decisions to dismiss other municipal challenges to the MBTA Communities lawsuit that made the same claims about the law being an “unfunded mandate.”
The justices’ move to uphold the validity of the MBTA Communities law for the second time – laws trying to fix the state’s housing crisis “falls squarely within the Legislature’s retained authority under the Home Rule Amendment,” the Friday decision reads – was also important, Love said.
“This opinion unequivocally says the Legislature has the power to pass broadly applicable laws for that purpose” of tackling the housing crisis, Love said. “We’re hoping this slams the door on further legal challenges and more MBTA Communities will do their part to facilitate more housing opportunities for Massachusetts residents.”
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with comment from the town of Marshfield and the Citizens Housing and Planning Association.
