Massachusetts’ highest court upheld the state’s transit-oriented zoning mandate for a second time on Sept. 18, rejecting every argument the town of Marshfield raised against a law that requires 177 communities to allow multifamily housing as of right near MBTA service.
The unanimous decision in Town of Marshfield & another v. Commonwealth & another, docketed as SJC-13840, leaves the MBTA Communities Act intact after a second constitutional test in 20 months. For developers and lenders underwriting apartment projects in eastern Massachusetts, it removes the largest remaining legal question hanging over a zoning regime that has already reshaped where multifamily construction is permitted in Greater Boston.
Justice Serge Georges Jr., writing for the court, concluded that the statute β Section 3A of the state Zoning Act β “is a valid general law,” language that resolves the town’s central claim that the Legislature had overstepped the Home Rule Amendment. The slip opinion reasons that the law addresses “the Commonwealth’s housing crisis, a subject not confined to any one municipality,” and therefore falls inside the Legislature’s retained authority to legislate on matters of statewide concern.
Three arguments, three rejections
Marshfield’s appeal rested on a stack of theories, and the court took them down one at a time.
The town’s best-known claim was that Section 3A is an unfunded local mandate under the state’s Local Mandate Law, which would let a municipality avoid compliance until the state pays for it. The court did not resolve whether zoning costs can ever qualify. It held instead that Marshfield’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” an “unfunded local mandate,” because the town had not alleged enough factual content to distinguish its costs from the incidental administrative expenses the statute expressly excludes. Drafting bylaws and putting them before town meeting, in other words, is ordinary municipal work.
Marshfield also argued that the law violates the constitutional rights of its town meeting voters by effectively requiring them to vote yes. The court held that neither the town nor its select board has standing to assert constitutional claims on behalf of voters; municipalities are creatures of the state, not rights-bearing parties against it.
Finally, the town said the mandate conflicts with Chapter 40A, the state Zoning Act, which vests zoning amendments in town meeting. The court found “no conflict,” reasoning that Section 3A “does not displace the procedures” for adopting zoning. It imposes a substantive requirement that municipalities must still enact through their own local process.
How Marshfield got here
Marshfield, a coastal town of roughly 26,000 in Plymouth County, has no MBTA station of its own. It is classified under Section 3A as an adjacent community because it borders transit-served towns, a designation that carries a smaller zoning obligation than a rapid-transit or commuter-rail community but an obligation nonetheless.
Town meeting voters twice turned down compliance zoning, and the select board declined to file an interim action plan. The town then sued the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, arguing it should be funded or excused. A Superior Court judge dismissed the case, finding the town’s costs indirect, and Marshfield took the appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard argument in March.
The ruling is the second time the SJC has sided with the state. In Attorney General v. Town of Milton, decided Jan. 8, 2025, the court confirmed that the law is constitutional and that the attorney general may enforce it β while striking the state’s implementation guidelines for skipping required rulemaking. The state refiled those rules as emergency regulations, and Marshfield’s appeal left both the statute and its regulations standing.
What it means for the development pipeline
The practical significance is supply. Section 3A forces designated municipalities to create at least one district where multifamily housing is allowed by right at a gross density of 15 units per acre, without a special permit β the discretionary step that has historically killed or shrunk apartment projects in Massachusetts suburbs.
Compliance is now close to universal. As of Aug. 31, 168 of the 177 designated communities had filed zoning plans and 159 had been found fully or conditionally compliant, with roughly 10,000 units in the resulting pipeline, according to state figures reported by CommonWealth Beacon. On our reading, the holdout towns now have no live legal theory left: the two arguments most often floated in town meeting debate β unfunded mandate and home rule β have both been tested at the top of the state court system and lost.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell has already sued noncompliant communities, and the ruling strengthens that hand. Marshfield must now either adopt conforming zoning or face enforcement.
The fight is not unique to Massachusetts. California is in the middle of a similar round of litigation over its transit-housing law, where a realtor-backed group has sued San Diego, San Francisco and Montebello over implementation of SB 79. Massachusetts lawmakers are separately negotiating dueling housing supply bills that would layer additional production measures on top of Section 3A, and the ruling removes any argument that the underlying zoning mandate might be struck down before those measures take effect. Further housing market coverage is on the site.
