Court Dismisses Lawsuits from Nine Towns Challenging MBTA Communities Law
Judge rules multi-family housing requirement does not impose unfunded mandate on municipalities
BOSTON - June 6 - A Massachusetts Superior Court judge has dismissed lawsuits from nine towns, including Duxbury, Hanson, and Marshfield, challenging the MBTA Communities Law, ruling that the law does not impose an unfunded mandate on cities and towns.
In a decision issued June 6, Judge Mark C. Gildea granted the Attorney General's motions to dismiss all nine lawsuits and denied the towns' motions for preliminary injunctions that sought to exempt them from complying with the law.
"Today's decision is a win for Massachusetts and so many of us affected by the statewide housing crisis," says Attorney General Andrea Campbell. "The Superior Court confirmed what has long been clear: a state law requiring multi-family housing districts in communities served by public transportation, but leaving the details and location of those districts to the municipalities themselves, permissibly addresses our housing shortage while still preserving substantial local discretion."
The MBTA Communities Law, which went into effect on Jan. 14, 2021, requires communities served by MBTA transit to zone at least one district where multi-family housing is permitted as of right. The law aims to combat Massachusetts' ongoing housing crisis by encouraging housing production.
Towns that fail to comply with the law become ineligible for funds from several state grant programs, including the Housing Choice Initiative, the Local Capital Projects Fund, the MassWorks Infrastructure Program, and the HousingWorks Infrastructure Program.
The nine municipalities that filed lawsuits include Duxbury, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleton, Wenham, Weston, and Wrentham, along with residents of Hamilton.
In their complaints, the towns argued that the law would force them to incur substantial infrastructure costs to accommodate new housing developments, including impacts to water systems, public safety services, educational services, buildings, roads, and other governmental services.
Judge Gildea rejected this argument, finding that any potential future infrastructure costs were "indirect and speculative" rather than direct costs that would trigger the unfunded mandate law.
"The Municipalities have neither pled specific costs for anticipated infrastructure costs, nor provided any specific timeline for anticipated construction projects," the judge writes in his decision. "Instead, the only allegations and averments before the court are generalized comments about large-scale issues they foresee, which are insufficient to sustain the Municipalities' claims."
The court also notes that the MBTA Communities Law does not require towns to construct housing, but only to zone for it. The law "merely encourages" housing production through zoning requirements.
"Section 3A and the related regulations do not compel construction. They merely encourage it," Judge Gildea writes.
Several towns, including Marshfield, also sought the release of grant funds they claim were being withheld due to their non-compliance with the law. Marshfield had received notification that its application for the "Permitting North/South River Dredging" project had been approved for $261,600, but the award was contingent on compliance with the MBTA Communities Law.
The judge denied these requests, noting that the approval letters explicitly stated they did not constitute contracts and that compliance with the law was a prerequisite for executing final grant agreements.
Some municipalities, including Holden and Middleton, argued they were improperly classified as MBTA communities under the law. The court rejected these arguments as well, finding that the towns had not provided sufficient factual or legal basis to challenge their classifications.
Marshfield separately argued that the law infringes upon its Town Meeting authority to develop and enforce zoning regulations. The town noted that its Town Meeting had rejected the zoning requirements set forth in the law on two occasions.
Judge Gildea dismissed this argument, citing established legal principles that "the powers of a town and of its town meeting, and the very existence of the town, are subject to the will of the Legislature."
The court's decision follows a January 2025 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court in Attorney General v. Milton, which found the MBTA Communities Law to be constitutional and enforceable by the Attorney General.
The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities has given MBTA communities until July 14, 2025, to submit a "District Compliance Application" if they filed an interim action plan by Feb. 13, 2025.
According to the Attorney General's statement, the "overwhelming majority of communities" have already come into compliance with the law.