On Friday, September 18, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) affirmed the dismissal of the Town of Marshfield’s challenge to the MBTA Communities Act (the “Act” or “Section 3A”).[1] The decision confirms that covered municipalities must adopt and maintain zoning that permits multifamily housing as of right in at least one district. It also rejects Marshfield’s four principal theories for avoiding that obligation, which are explored in more detail below. Notably, the SJC rejected Marshfield’s claim that the Act improperly imposes an unlawful mandatory direct service or cost obligation on cities and towns. For multifamily developers and lenders, the immediate takeaway is that there is now increased legal certainty around the need for all municipalities subject to the MBTA Communities Act to adopt and maintain zoning that permits multifamily development as of right. Those communities that have continued to hold out from compliance and that have challenged the state’s role in zoning have lost another challenge to the MBTA Communities Act. The SJC made it clear that municipalities must comply with the requirements of the Act and that the Act is a valid law addressing the statewide housing shortage. The MBTA Communities Act: What it Does Enacted in 2021, the MBTA Communities Act requires each “MBTA community”[2] to have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multifamily housing is permitted without age restrictions and suitable for families with children,[3] without a special permit or other discretionary zoning approval.[4] The statute generally requires the district to have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre and, where applicable, location within one-half mile of a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal, or bus station. Importantly, the statute is only a zoning mandate and does not compel landowners to construct multifamily housing or any specified number of units. The implementing regulations promulgated by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (“EOHLC”)[5] use community categories, minimum land area, unit-capacity calculations, density, location, and other criteria to determine compliance. Non-compliant communities are ineligible for certain state funding programs, including the Housing Choice Initiative, Local Capital Projects Fund, MassWorks infrastructure program, and HousingWorks infrastructure program.[6] The SJC previously confirmed in Attorney General v. Milton[7] that the Act imposes an enforceable, mandatory duty upon affected communities to comply. How the Marshfield Dispute Arose Marshfield, an MBTA community, held special town meetings on April 22 and December 16, 2024 to consider zoning amendments intended to bring the town into compliance with the Act, and both proposals failed. On February 10, 2025, the Select Board unanimously voted not to approve an interim action plan to help bring Marshfield into compliance with the Act. EOHLC then notified Marshfield that it was non-compliant and risked losing state grant funding. Marshfield and its Select Board sued the Commonwealth and EOHLC in Superior Court arguing that the Act and its regulations: (1) constituted an unfunded local mandate; (2) infringed upon the voting rights of town meeting voters; (3) violated the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution; and (4) conflicted with other zoning laws that govern local adoption of zoning ordinances. The Superior Court dismissed Marshfield’s suit, and the SJC accepted direct appellate review. The SJC’s Decision  Marshfield’s Local Mandate Argument. Under Massachusetts’ Local Mandate Law, state laws and regulations adopted after 1980 (with some exceptions) that impose a mandatory direct service or cost obligation upon municipalities can only be binding in a municipality if the law or regulation has been accepted by that municipality (either expressly or implicitly).[8] However, costs attributable to incidental administrative expenses or the municipality’s voluntary choices about how to comply with a law do not fall within the definition of “direct service[s] or cost obligation[s]” prohibited by the Local Mandate Law. Marshfield argued that the costs of evaluating and drafting proposed zoning bylaws, presenting them at town meetings, and anticipated future expenses required by the MBTA Communities Act violates the Local Mandate Law. The SJC rejected Marshfield’s local mandate argument, holding that the only costs of compliance with the Act alleged by Marshfield (i) constituted incidental administrative expenses, (ii) were voluntary choices of the municipality, or (iii) were too speculative. Importantly, the SJC did not hold that every possible cost associated with Section 3A compliance is categorically outside § 27C.  Marshfield’s argument regarding violation of voters’ constitutional rights. As noted above, the second argument made by Marshfield was that the Act violates the voting rights of its citizens. However, the SJC held that Marshfield, as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, generally may not challenge a state law by asserting state constitutional protections belonging to persons independent of the Commonwealth. Since the case was brought by the town and the members of its Select Board in their official capacities and alleged no personal injury, the SJC determined that they lacked standing to assert the claimed voting rights violations on behalf of the town’s voters.  Marshfield’s argument that the Act violates the Home Rule Amendment. In its decision, the SJC explained that the Home Rule Amendment[9] preserves municipal authority over local matters, but does not prevent the Legislature from imposing substantive requirements through a valid general law addressing a statewide concern. Since housing supply is not confined to any one municipality, the SJC concluded that the Act falls within the Legislature’s retained authority and does not violate the Home Rule Amendment.  Marshfield’s argument that the Act conflicts with ordinary zoning-adoption procedures. Marshfield also argued that the Act conflicts with M.G.L. c. 40A, § 5 which governs the adoption of zoning ordinances by municipalities. However, the SJC determined that Section 5 continues to govern the local procedure for adopting and amending zoning, whereas the Act imposes a substantive state-law requirement on the zoning that results. City councils and town meeting voters remain free to debate, amend, approve, or reject a proposal, but their authority does not include exempting the municipality from valid state law. A vote rejecting compliant zoning, therefore, results in municipal non-compliance; it does not invalidate Section 3A or create a statutory conflict. Practical Implications Greater durability of the statewide zoning framework. The decision removes the specific legal theories Marshfield advanced as a basis for opting out and reinforces prior authority that Section 3A is mandatory. Cities and towns, therefore, must adopt zoning and seek EOHLC approval to avoid non-compliance. Zoning capacity is not project entitlement. A compliant district must allow multifamily housing as of right, but site-plan review may still regulate layout, access, design, and screening so long as it does not operate as a disguised discretionary denial or make a compliant project impractical. Other generally applicable permitting regimes remain relevant. Municipal implementation still matters. The value of Section 3A zoning to a development project will vary by location, dimensional standards, parking requirements, parcel configuration, infrastructure, wetlands, Title 5 constraints, and market conditions. Developers should analyze the adopted bylaw or ordinance, zoning map, and any later municipal amendments or practices rather than relying solely on a community’s published compliance status. Compliance is ongoing. Under 760 CMR 72.10, EOHLC may rescind a compliance determination or require changes if a municipality materially alters the district or fails to issue permits for qualifying as-of-right development. Project teams should monitor post-compliance zoning amendments, local rules, and permitting conduct that could affect the district. Financing diligence should remain site-specific. Lenders may take additional comfort from the SJC’s validation of the statutory framework. However, as always, in making lending decisions and considering construction draw requests for any particular project, lenders should continue to be mindful of current zoning, building and other entitlement compliance, the status of non-zoning permits, etc. Non-compliant municipalities remain a live enforcement and timing risk. The case confirms that a failed local vote does not excuse non-compliance but does not directly address the remedy for continued refusal of a municipality to comply. Developers pursuing sites in a non-compliant community should account for continued uncertainty until compliant zoning is adopted, approved, and applied in practice.  The unfunded-mandate issue is narrowed, not erased. Because the SJC expressly declined to rule categorically on all compliance costs, other municipalities may try to make future arguments that specific costs associated with the Act constitute an unlawful unfunded mandate. This case nevertheless sets a demanding standard and makes clear that generalized costs of the type described by Marshfield do not fall within the unfunded mandate prohibition. Conclusion Marshfield is a significant affirmation of the Commonwealth’s authority to require qualifying multifamily zoning in MBTA communities. For developers and lenders, it strengthens confidence that Section 3A districts rest on a valid statewide mandate and that municipalities cannot rely on ordinary local voting procedures, home rule, generalized cost allegations, or third-party constitutional claims to opt out. Municipalities must continue to take steps to ensure compliance with the Act. Sullivan’s Real Estate, Permitting & Land Use, and Real Estate Finance teams are monitoring implementation of the MBTA Communities Act and related enforcement and are available to assist with zoning, permitting, development, and financing questions. [1] Town of Marshfield v. Commonwealth, SJC-13840, slip op. (Sept. 18, 2026). [2] MBTA communities are defined as municipalities that host MBTA service, “served communities” that abut a host municipality, and certain other municipalities that have become subject to the Act through M.G.L. c. 161A, § 6. [3] M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A(a)(1). [4] M.G.L. c. 40A, § 1A. The EOHLC regulations, however, permit site-plan review and certain other constraints. [5] 760 CMR 72.00. [6] M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A(a)(2). [7] Attorney General v. Milton, 495 Mass. 183 (2025). [8] M.G.L. c. 29, § 27(c). [9] Article LXXXIX of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced, on March 21, 2025, that it issued an interim final rule that removes the requirements for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information (BOI) under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The interim final rule narrows the existing BOI reporting requirements by revising the definition of “reporting company” (i.e., companies required to file BOI reports) to include only “foreign reporting companies” (i.e., companies formed outside of a US state or tribal territory but that are registered to do business in the United States). As a result, domestic reporting companies (i.e., companies formed in a US state or tribal territory) are now exempted from the BOI reporting requirements pursuant to the CTA. The rule also provides foreign reporting companies with exemptions from reporting any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of the foreign reporting company. Foreign reporting companies that are registered to do business in the United States must file BOI reports with FinCEN within 30 days from the date of the rule’s publication in the Federal Register on March 26, 2025. If foreign reporting companies are registered to do business in the United States on or after the date of publication, they must submit BOI reports within 30 days after receiving notice of the effectiveness of their registration. Please see our prior CTA-related client alerts here and here for additional information about the filing requirements and the applicable exceptions, and do not hesitate to reach out to your contacts at Sullivan if you have any questions about CTA compliance or BOI report filing requirements.