Massachusetts’ highest court denied Marshfield’s challenge of a state law requiring new housing developments in communities served by the MBTA.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s Friday order upheld a lower court’s dismissal of Marshfield’s complaint that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Communities Act represents an unfunded mandate in violation of state law and that it violates the voting rights of its own residents which have rejected the requirement.

“The complaint does not plausibly allege that the MBTA Act or its regulations imposed on Marshfield an unfunded local mandate,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote. He later adds, “We further conclude that Marshfield and the board lack standing to assert a constitutional voting rights claim on behalf of Marshfield’s town meeting voters.”

The law, signed by Gov. Charlie Baker in January 2021, requires municipalities served by the MBTA to establish “at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right” and where possible to be within a half mile from public transportation, according to a state summary.

The SJC represents a win for state Attorney General Andrea Campbell, whose office has battled Marshfield and other communities challenging the requirements of the law.

“Massachusetts has a housing crisis, and it’s impacting everything from our ability to grow our workforce to the everyday cost of living,” Campbell said following the decision. “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.”

The law has created a rift between state and local officials that even led to the loss of some state funding in Milton in 2024.

Milton, like Marshfield, had challenged the law after its residents in town meetings had rejected plans that complied with the law. This procedure, it had argued, follows its own town mandate.

The communities challenging the law had found support from at least one state-level official, Auditor Diana DiZoglio, whose office found in February 2025 the “law is an unfunded mandate as it ‘does not provide a funding mechanism for compliance with its provisions’ and that the Legislature failed to provide an appropriation when approving it.

Robert Galvin, Marshfield’s town counsel, said that the SJC decision had failed to adequately address the unfunded mandate portion of its complaint, leaving the “overriding issue with relatively little new guidance.”

He added that the SJC’s decision rejecting Marshfield’s ability to exempt itself “is helpful guidance but does not make local communities feel better about recent state action restricting traditionally local zoning authority.”

In March of 2025, Gov. Maura Healey said that while she didn’t want to see cities and towns “penalized” because of the law, she “cannot commit” that her administration will “refrain from withholding funding” from those who do not comply with the law.

©2026 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Visit at bostonherald.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.