Home Rule Legislation and its Place in Massachusetts Municipal Law

By Mina Makarious

In 2025, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted a total of 101 session laws, well over half of which consisted of “home rule legislation.” This form of legislation is enacted by the Legislature as a whole but applies to only one city or town. Topics covered by home rule legislation include the broad (e.g., changing various municipalities’ charters¹) to the provincial (e.g., changing the name of various towns’ “Board of Selectmen” to “Select Board,” permitting the Richmond Public Library to earn interest on its investments, and authorizing a $100 parking fine during snowstorms in Marblehead).

The demand for home rule legislation is not likely to wane in coming years. To the contrary, based on this author’s experience as municipal counsel, the number of such petitions on local town meeting warrants and city council agendas—where requests for home rule legislation typically originate—has only been increasing as municipalities look to react to a variety of concerns such as budget shortfalls, gaps in housing availability, and climate change.

The pattern is also reflective of a larger trend: a desire by the electorate to influence Beacon Hill from the outside. With the Commonwealth facing a record number of statewide ballot initiative petitions, it is not at all surprising to see a similar surge in local home rule petitions, many of which are initiated by local citizens. These petitions, which may grow out of frustration with other governmental entities’ failure to act, are being made ever more accessible by technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence and social media, that streamline the process for citizens to draft petitions, publicize them, and lobby for them at the local level.

But what are these “home rule” legislative creatures? How do they fit within our state legal scheme more generally? And why are there so many? I address each of these topics below. I also explain why home rule legislation is necessary under the Commonwealth’s constitutional and statutory scheme and provide examples of the ways in which municipalities utilize home rule legislation to supplement their governmental authority.²

 The Limits of Municipal Authority Under Massachusetts Law

 Understanding home rule legislation begins by understanding what cities and towns can and cannot do without permission from the Legislature. Section 1 of the “Home Rule Amendment”3 provides:

It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters, subject to the provisions of this article and to such standards and requirements as the general court [i.e., the Legislature] may establish by law in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Consistent with this lofty statement, Section 6 of the Home Rule Amendment begins with a broad grant of power to municipalities to do anything the Legislature could allow municipalities to do on their own:

Any city or town may, by the adoption, amendment, or repeal of local ordinances or by-laws, exercise any power or function which the general court has power to confer upon it . . .

But if municipalities can enact local bylaws or ordinances to do everything the Legislature could do, why would Marblehead bother asking the Legislature to allow it to issue a $100 fine during a snow emergency? The answer lies in two additional provisions of the Home Rule Amendment.

First, Section 6 of the Home Rule Amendment goes on to state that no municipal ordinance or bylaw may be “inconsistent with the constitution or laws enacted by the general court.” This language, which serves as the Commonwealth’s analog to the federal Supremacy Clause, preempts local laws that conflict with state law, severely undercutting the apparent breadth of the preceding clause. See Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 155 (1973) (noting that, under the Home Rule Amendment, determining whether a local ordinance or bylaw is “not inconsistent” with a statute requires the same analysis of legislative intent as is applied in federal preemption cases). Accordingly, while Section 6 theoretically permits municipalities to do everything the Legislature can do, the Legislature can just as easily make local action “inconsistent” by enacting state laws⁴ or by so thoroughly regulating a field as to leave no room for municipal regulation.⁵ In fact, before a town bylaw can take effect, the Attorney General must first determine that it is not inconsistent with state law. See Validation of by-laws; procedure, G.L. c. 40, § 32. This requirement applies only to town bylaws and not to city ordinances.

Second, Section 7 of the Home Rule Amendment prohibits cities and towns from acting on several enumerated topics, even where the municipality is acting “consistently” with state law. Specifically, the Home Rule Amendment provides that cities and towns lack the power to:

• regulate elections, other than through the charter adoption or revision process permitted in other sections of the Home Rule Amendment;
• levy, assess, and collect taxes;
• borrow money or pledge the credit of the city or town;
• dispose of park land;
• enact private or civil law governing civil relationships except as an incident to an exercise of an independent municipal power; or
• define and provide for the punishment of a felony or to impose imprisonment as a punishment for any violation of law.

These “off-limits” areas of local action are often surprising to newly elected local officials, who may have run with an interest in addressing precisely these sorts of issues and with the understanding that they, like those at other levels of government, would be able to do so. The result, in some cases, may be a substantial gap between what municipal leaders (and residents) want to do and what they can do.

The Potential Saving Grace of Home Rule Legislation

Home rule legislation, at least in theory, fills this gap. Where a municipality seeks to act in a manner preempted by state law or in any of the areas prohibited by Section 7 of the Home Rule Amendment, it must seek approval from the Legislature. Acting pursuant to Section 8 of the Home Rule Amendment, the Legislature can pass legislation unique to one municipality either (1) at that municipality’s request or (2) by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature at the request of the governor.

Of these two methods, the first—typically called a “home rule petition”—is more common. The process to adopt and enact a home rule petition is typically identical to the process for adopting a local bylaw or ordinance. In a town, this involves passage by a town meeting (the town’s legislative body) of a petition containing the general subject matter of the proposed legislation and, quite often, the specific proposed language for that legislation. In a city, the City Council and mayor must approve the petition, just as they would an ordinance.⁶ Thus, to even request that the Legislature adopt a home rule petition, its proponents must undergo the same legal and political process to gain approval as they would for any local bylaw or ordinance.

Home rule legislation enacted by the Legislature carries the same weight as any other Session Law or General Law of the Commonwealth. This means that, within the municipality to which it applies, the home rule legislation can provide for rules that are inconsistent with generally applicable state law.⁷ Accordingly, while the process of enacting home rule legislation can be cumbersome, it remains an attractive option to cities and towns.

But there is an important catch. Getting political support at the local level is not enough to guarantee success. Once a municipality asks for local legislation to be approved, the Legislature is under no more obligation to approve it than any other legislation. Politics, including the micropolitics and relationships between legislators, can stall home rule legislation, just as they can stall changes to General Laws. And, broadly speaking, home rule legislation is subject to the same procedural steps as other state legislation, including adherence to committee rules and traditions. As a result, only a fraction of the hundreds of home rule petitions filed each year come to a vote, and many die with a whimper in committee. Further, municipal counsel report that their cities and towns rarely receive meaningful feedback on why their requests went unanswered or hear any further debate on their proposals.

Motivations for Home Rule Legislation

Despite these challenges, municipalities clearly have not given up on home rule petitions. An in-depth discussion of all possible reasons for their persistence exceeds the scope of this article. Some common reasons, however, include:

They want to do something they know state law does not currently allow. A basic rationale for home rule legislation is simply that one city or town wants to do something that makes sense for it, but not for others. The City of Boston, which has nearly four times the population of the next largest municipality, provides the paradigm for this. Boston operates under a special zoning act (rather than G.L. c. 40A) that recognizes the greater complexity of the city’s planning needs. It is also, among other things, has a unique procurement strategy intended to incentivize bidding by small and disadvantaged businesses.

The major hurdle to using home rule petitions for local experimentation, of course, is that the state Legislature is made up of representatives of the whole state, who may not agree that an experiment is necessary or advisable. That appears to be the case (at least so far) with respect to a bill initiated by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to allow the city to levy a higher proportion of taxes on commercial properties relative to residential ones. While the legislation has passed the City Council multiple times, it was once again rejected by the Massachusetts Senate this past January, in favor of its own alternate tax relief measures. See Katie Lannan, State Senate votes down Wu’s property tax plan, passes alternative measure, GBH, Jan. 15, 2026.

They have to (or think they have to). Certain municipal actions require legislative action to take effect. For example, under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, “[l]ands and easements taken or acquired” for conservation purposes “shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of” without the approval of a two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature. The “relatively imprecise” language of Article 97 has been the subject of significant litigation. See Smith v. City of Westfield, 478 Mass. 49, 56 (2017) (citation omitted). Accordingly, municipalities at times seek Article 97 legislation as a precaution, even where it is not entirely clear it is necessary.

Relatedly, when municipalities are unsure of whether state law allows them to act on their own, they may seek special legislation out of an abundance of caution. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many municipalities sought means to run town meetings by hybrid or remote means. Faced with the inability to meet in-person, several municipalities considered whether they could rely on statutory language permitting town meetings to be “in one or more places . . . connected by means of a public address system and loudspeakers so that the proceedings in all such places may be heard and participated in by all the voters present therein.” G.L. c. 39, § 10. Compelling arguments exist in favor of interpreting this provision to allow for remote meetings. The language, written in 1959, appeared to contemplate the means of technology available then, and could easily be adapted to remote or hybrid meetings, where the “places” would be individual homes or offices.

But, when enough doubt was raised about the counterargument that the statute did not contemplate the possibility of individualized spaces, the state passed emergency legislation authorizing such meetings in certain circumstances and for a limited time. See An Act Relative to Municipal Governance During the COVID-19 Emergency, St. 2020, c. 92, § 8. That legislation has since been renewed several times and is set to expire in 2027. See, e.g., An Act Making Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2022 to Provide for supplementing Certain Existing Appropriations and for Certain Other Activities and Projects, St. 2022, c. 22, § 26; An Act Extending Certain COVID-19 Measures Adopted During the State of Emergency, St. 2025, c. 2, § 3. The issue of whether it is even necessary has never been settled. Accordingly, municipalities have felt “stuck” in seeking legislation, and several have asked for home rule legislation authorizing continued use of the practice. After all, a member of the public (or a skeptical court) could wonder why a town believed it needed express authority in 2020 to conduct such meetings but could read authority into Chapter 39 thereafter.

While the COVID emergency has largely passed, unfortunately it has proven much harder to get timely action on these local requests, leading instead to several last-minute extensions of the prior statewide legislation. For example, in 2025, the Legislature extended the prior expiration date of March 31, 2025, with only three days to spare. An Act Extending Certain COVID-19 Measures Adopted During the State of Emergency, St. 2025, c. 2, § 4. And to date, only one town (Plymouth) has received permanent authorization to hold remote town meetings. See An Act Authorizing the Town of Plymouth to Hold Remote Representative Town Meetings, St. 2022, c. 291.

This example provides a cautionary tale for those considering the use of special legislation to clarify existing state law. When a municipality asks the Legislature to say it can do something, it effectively leaves itself at the mercy of the Legislature, rather than testing the potential limits of its own home rule authority. When the Legislature fails to act, and especially when it fails to address why it has not acted, there is no way of knowing whether the Legislature believes the municipality is already empowered to act or whether the Legislature is denying it the ability to act.⁸

To persuade the Legislature to act on a statewide basis. Some special legislation has been filed with full understanding that it may not lead immediately to law but that, if an issue is raised by enough municipalities, it may spur statewide action.

For example, between 2019 and 2022, several municipalities sought to limit the use of fossil fuel infrastructure in new construction in their communities. After the Attorney General’s office rejected Brookline’s attempt to do so by bylaw, determining it as “inconsistent” with state law provisions requiring uniformity in the building code, see Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Municipal Law Unit Case #9725 (July 21, 2020), Brookline and several other communities filed home rule petitions seeking the authority to do so on their own. Although the Legislature did not immediately take these bills up, it included provisions in the 2022 Act Driving Clean Energy and Offshore Wind, St. 2022, c. 179, mandating that the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) implement a “demonstration project” allowing up to 10 municipalities to prohibit most fossil fuels in new construction. As a nod to the municipalities that provided the impetus for the statewide legislation, the Legislature directed DOER to give preference to communities who had already requested a home rule petition to that effect.

Other home rule petition activity has been more symbolic, giving municipalities an opportunity to add their voices to those of others seeking statewide changes that, to date, have failed to materialize. The City of Cambridge, for instance, has passed legislation seeking to permit 16-year-olds to vote in local elections at least three times since 2002. The Legislature has never approved. Nevertheless, over time, several other municipalities have joined this cause, and others have considered it at town meetings and city council meetings. Even recognizing that their chances of success are low, activists often use such petitioning as a tool to demonstrate to Beacon Hill that there is widespread support for an idea for which they are also advocating at the state level.

Conclusion

As long as the Massachusetts Constitution constrains municipalities’ ability to address local problems on their own, cities and towns are likely to continue to seek home rule legislation to fill their governance needs. In addition, as citizens make clear that they want all levels of government to act more quickly and forcefully on a range of issues, home rule petitions are only likely to increase. Of course, this may have the unintended consequence of further slowing down the Legislature, bogging it down with relatively insignificant and narrowly applicable bills.

How the Legislature will react to the constant demand for home rule legislation is less certain. Local petitions may spur more general legislation to address areas of concern. Or legislators may find it easier to authorize localized experiments while working through broader solutions. Whatever the result, home rule petitions are likely to remain central to the Legislature’s work for years to come.

Mina S. Makarious is a partner at Anderson & Kreiger. He is Town Counsel to Concord, Lexington, and Belmont, and co-City Solicitor for Newburyport.

Endnotes

1. Legislation amending and establishing charters relies, in a technical legal sense, on a different source of home rule authority than home rule petition authority, which is the focus of this article. See Esteban Gutierrez-Alvarez, Superintending the City: An Administrative Law for Home Rule, 59 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 209, 233-39 (2026).
2. For a deeper analysis of the Home Rule Amendment and home rule legislation, including a review of data collected from various municipal officials, the author strongly recommends: David J. Barron et al.,Dispelling the Myth of Home Rule: Local Power in Greater Boston, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, chap. 1 (2004). While the paper is now over two decades old, the complaints expressed to the authors about the limitations of home rule, and the authors’ conclusions regarding home rule legislation’s benefits and drawbacks, will be quite familiar to municipal lawyers today.
3. In the late 1960s, the Legislature passed Article 89 of the Articles of Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, which revised Article 2 of the Amendments (the “Home Rule Amendment”). The Legislature also passed the Home Rule Procedures Act, G.L. c. 43B, which implements the Home Rule Amendment.
4. See, e.g., Subjects which zoning may not regulate; exemptions; public hearings; temporary manufactured home residences, G.L. c. 40A, § 3 (limiting in several respects municipal zoning control); New England LNG Co. v. City of Fall River, 368 Mass. 259, 267 (1975) (determining that local ordinance could not regulate gas facilities as to matters where the relevant authority was expressly delegated to the state Department of Public Utilities).
5. See, e.g., Del Duca Town Adm’r of Methuen, 368 Mass. 1, 12 (1975) (“[T]he Legislature has, as it has power to do, taken the entire subject of the establishment, powers, and duties of local, regional, and State planning boards in hand, and has thereby precluded any local action which would impair the operation and effect of the statutes in that field.”).
6. But see Opinion of the Justs. to the House of Representatives, 375 Mass. 843, 845-46 (1978) (holding that in cities with a Plan E form of government, where the mayor has no power to approve ordinances, the approval of the mayor is not required to file a home rule petition).
7. A case filed in December 2025, Lab 9 Modular, LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. Standards and Michael Flanagan, Dir. of the Dep’t of Lab. Standards, No. 2584-CV-03451-BLS2 (Suffolk Sup. Ct.), raises an interesting question regarding what happens when legislation that originated as an act proposed by a town or city leads to consequences beyond the filing town’s or city’s borders. The case involves the application of legislation sought by Somerville, which exempted a public housing project in the city from certain public procurement requirements but stated that the project would be subject to prevailing wage requirements. However, some aspects of the project also involved preparation of “modular” units in Littleton, to be later moved to Somerville. The complaint alleges that the Department of Labor Standards incorrectly read the legislation to require the same prevailing wage requirements for work done in Littleton as the legislation requires for Somerville. The case remains pending at the time of publication.
8. See Barron, supra, at p. 11 for further discussion of this issue.