Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Timeline: These Mass. towns sued the state over MBTA Communities Act
Several towns are taking legal action against the state over the State Auditor's "unfunded mandate" decision.
A Superior Court judge on June 6 dismissed lawsuits from several Massachusetts towns that claimed the MBTA Communities Act was “an unfunded mandate” and questioned the law’s fiscal impact.
Duxbury, Hamilton, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleborough, Middleton, Wenham, Weston, and Wrentham all filed lawsuits against the state since February. Middleborough has since dropped its lawsuit after reaching a settlement with the state.
The spate of lawsuits follow a decision by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office in late February, which determined the law “constitutes an unfunded mandate.” This means it allegedly didn’t provide communities with proper funding to meet its requirements when it was passed.
When the state mandates that local governments offer a new service, it is generally required to provide funding to meet those requirements, as per the Local Mandate Law. If a local government believes it is not receiving the necessary funding to implement the service, it can petition the Office of the State Auditor’s Division of Local Mandates (DLM) to determine if it is being subjected to an unfunded mandate.
Advertisement:
On Feb. 21, 2025, DiZoglio’s office responded to three local mandate requests from Wrentham, Methuen, and Middleborough, asking the DLM to look into concerns regarding the MBTA Communities Act.
In all three requests, she found “that the MBTA Communities Act constitutes an unfunded mandate.” However, she also asked for extra time to perform a more thorough analysis of “the costs imposed as the impact of the MBTA Communities Act is still being determined.” Methuen has not filed a lawsuit against the state since DiZoglio issued her DLM response to the city.
In response to the State Auditor’s claim, Governor Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell have stated that the law is not an unfunded mandate and that the state will vigorously defend the law.
Advertisement:
DiZoglio’s unfunded mandate claim came after the law faced fresh challenges to its legality. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled against the Town of Milton on Jan. 8, 2025 (which challenged the legality of the law), determining that the MBTA Communities Act is legal and constitutional. In the same decision, the SJC also ruled the law “unenforceable,” but the state filed new guidelines in an effort to make the law enforceable.
Below, Boston.com rounded up a timeline of the lawsuits filed against the state over DiZoglio’s “unfunded mandate” claims.
Judge dismisses towns’ challenge over MBTA housing law
On June 6, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge dismissed a set of lawsuits brought by nine towns challenging the MBTA Communities Act over “unfunded mandate” claims.
The lawsuits – filed by Duxbury, Hamilton, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleton, Wenham, Weston, and Wrentham – warned that increased housing density could overburden local infrastructure, such as roads and sewer systems. Middleborough filed a lawsuit against the state over similar claims, but reached a settlement at the end of March. As such, it was not included in the decision.
Superior Court Justice Mark Gildea rejected the “unfunded mandate” claims as “speculative,” noting the towns failed to provide specific evidence of financial impact or detailed plans for upcoming infrastructure projects.
Advertisement:
“The Municipalities have neither pled specific costs for anticipated infrastructure costs, nor provided any specific timeline for anticipated construction projects,” Gildea wrote in the 40-page 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.”
Read more about the Superior Court’s decision.
Middleborough reaches settlement with state, drops lawsuit over MBTA Communities Act
On March 28, a month after filing its lawsuit over the MBTA Communities Act, Middleborough reached a settlement with the state and dropped its suit.
Last month, the town sued the state’s Executive Office of Housing and Liveable Communities (EOHLC) for an exemption from the Act, arguing it already had a zoning district (Chapter 40R Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District) that allows for multifamily housing, and should not have to create a new one.
In the settlement, the town will ask at the Fall Town Meeting to approve an expansion of its existing 40R zoning district instead of creating a new MBTA Communities Zoning district. The expanded 40R zoning district will be located in the area surrounding East Clark Street, according to Town Manager James McGrail’s April newsletter. However, if the article fails to pass at Town Meeting, the town said it will restore its lawsuit against the state.
Advertisement:
As a result of the settlement, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) has also declared that Middleborough is in interim compliance with the law.
“I want to thank the voters of Town Meeting for understanding the importance of maintaining local control and having faith in the Select Board, the Town Manager, and Director of Planning to find a solution to this matter,” Select Board Chair Mark Germain said in the announcement of the settlement. “We are pleased to find a compromise that works for the Town of Middleborough.”
Holden files “unfunded mandate” lawsuit against state
In a lawsuit filed in Worcester Superior Court on March 27, Holden asked the state for a preliminary injunction and to be exempt from compliance with the law – unless it is given funds for any costs related to compliance.
The 21-page complaint goes on to say the town isn’t equipped to handle an impact to its infrastructure brought on by the law, and called it an “unfunded mandate” – echoing the arguments made by several other towns. Holden also claims it is incorrectly classified as an “adjacent community” and argues it should not have to comply.
Meanwhile, the town is bringing an MBTA Communities Act zoning proposal (Article 37) to Town Meeting on May 19.
Hanson sues Mass. over DiZoglio’s “unfunded mandate” decision
In a complaint filed with Plymouth County Superior Court on March 10, 2025, Hanson sued the state over DiZoglio’s “unfunded mandate” decision.
In the lawsuit, the town wants to be exempt from being required to comply with the law and also seeks the release of grants that have been frozen by the state as a result of non-compliance.
Advertisement:
“The Select Board remains committed to obtaining important fiscal impact information on MBTA zoning compliance and believes that the Commonwealth’s financial analysis is necessary for voters to make an informed decision at Town Meeting on whether to adopt an MBTA Zoning bylaw,” the town said in a statement.
Hanson voters rejected Article 27, a 3A zoning proposal, at their Annual Town Meeting on May 6, 2024.
Middleton sues state, asks to be exempt from complying with the law
In a complaint filed in Essex County Superior Court on March 7, 2025, the town of Middleton sued the state, the EOHLC, the Executive Office of Economic Development (EOED), and Office of the State Auditor.
The lawsuit seeks that the town be exempt from compliance with the law because it is an “unfunded mandate,” the town claims it is not an adjacent community, and it seeks an injunction to free up grants rescinded by the state as a result of non-compliance.
Middleton rejected an MBTA Communities Zoning By-law at their annual town meeting on May 14, 2024 and again at a special town meeting on Dec. 12, 2024.
Wrentham sues the state, asks to be exempt from complying with the law
In a lawsuit filed in Norfolk Superior Court on March 6, 2025, Wrentham filed a lawsuit against the state, the EOHLC, and the Office of the State Auditor.
The lawsuit seeks to relieve the town from having to comply with the law until the state provides funding to cover the increased budgetary costs of compliance.
At a Special Town Meeting on Dec. 16, 2024, Wrentham voters rejected Article 2, a MBTA Communities Act zoning proposal.
Middleborough sues the state, arguing it has already met the law’s requirements
In a lawsuit filed in Plymouth Superior Court on Feb. 28, 2025, the town of Middleborough sued Governor Maura Healey and the state housing, claiming that it was “incorrectly declared ‘non-compliant’” by the state and is in compliance with the requirements of the law. Middleborough officials said the town’s Smart Growth Zoning District, passed in 2021, already meets the requirements of the law.
Advertisement:
The town also said its grant funding has been wrongly revoked, as a result of non-compliance with the law. Middleborough voters rejected Article 19, an MBTA Communities Act zoning article, at a Special Town Meeting on Monday, Oct. 7, 2024. The town also did not submit an action plan to the state by the Feb. 13 compliance deadline extension, resulting in a non-compliant status.
Marshfield sues the state, asks to be exempt from complying with the law
In a complaint filed in Plymouth Superior Court on Feb. 27, 2025, Marshfield sued the state and the Executive Office of Housing and Liveable Communities (EOHLC). The lawsuit seeks to receive funding to comply with the law and/or be exempt from compliance with the law until the state provides funding, according to the complaint.
Marshfield voters rejected an MBTA Communities Act proposal in April and December 2024 to bring the town into compliance with the law. The town was deemed non–compliant by the state as of March 19, 2025. The town was “suspended by EOHLC from multiple grant programs effective February 14, 2025” for non-compliance with the law, according to a press release.
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio releases “unfunded mandate” decision
On Feb. 21, 2025, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office released an opinion calling the MBTA Communities Act an “unfunded mandate.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com