SJC Reverses Eminent Domain Block: Town of Nahant v. Northeastern University (SJC-13844, September 3, 2026)

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed a summary judgment that had blocked the Town of Nahant from using eminent domain to take conservation easements over land owned by Northeastern University. The court held that the town’s stated purpose of preserving open space and natural habitat is a proper public purpose, and that Nahant did not act in bad faith merely because the taking would also prevent Northeastern’s planned expansion of its Marine Science Center campus.

The East Point Dispute

East Point is a 28.7-acre peninsula in Nahant, almost entirely surrounded by Massachusetts Bay. Northeastern owns 20.4 acres, most of which remains undeveloped; the town owns the easternmost 8.3 acres, which it operates as a public park called the Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Memorial Park. In 2018, Northeastern announced plans to build a new 55,000-square-foot building and an 80-well geothermal field on its property.

The announcement drew immediate opposition from town officials and residents. At a February 2018 selectmen’s meeting, one board member said he would be willing to “go to jail” to stop the project. Opponents cited concerns about infrastructure strain, traffic, wildlife disruption, and impacts on the town’s scenic character. Later that year, 1,683 residents signed a letter demanding Northeastern halt all expansion.

In 2021, after consultation with an eminent domain attorney and receipt of a $3 million donation from the Nahant Preservation Trust, the town meeting voted 647 to 271 to authorize the board of selectmen to take conservation and access easements over approximately twelve acres of Northeastern’s parcel. The stated purpose was to preserve the land “in perpetuity in [its] natural, scenic, and open condition” for public use and to protect wildlife habitat, scenic beauty, and open space.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

Northeastern opposed the taking, arguing the town acted in bad faith. A Superior Court judge agreed, granting Northeastern summary judgment and awarding over $1 million in fees and costs. The judge concluded that the town’s “dominant reason” was not conservation but stopping Northeastern’s development because it would detract from the town’s “scenic and residential nature.” He found the taking invalid under Pheasant Ridge Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Burlington, in which the SJC held that a town’s pretextual use of eminent domain to block a housing development was invalid.

What the SJC Held

Justice Dewar, writing for a unanimous court, reversed. The court held that Northeastern has “no reasonable expectation of proving that the town’s taking is invalid” on the record before it. The court found that the town’s stated purpose—preserving land for open space and conservation—is a valid public purpose, one expressly recognized in Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The court wrote that conservation has been recognized as a public purpose since at least 1913.

The court also held that preserving scenic character is itself a valid public purpose. Article 97 states that “the people shall have the right to . . . the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment,” and the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that “[i]t is within the power of the [L]egislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy.”

The Bad Faith Analysis

The SJC acknowledged that a taking can be invalid if undertaken in bad faith solely for an improper purpose, even when the stated purpose is valid. But the court emphasized that it does not “easily attribute improper motives to a town” and that a town’s exercise of eminent domain is a legislative act entitled to a presumption of validity.

The court distinguished Pheasant Ridge, where a town fabricated public purposes for a taking “within minutes” of a town meeting, without consulting relevant agencies, and where the record showed the town did not intend in good faith to use the property for the stated purposes. Here, by contrast, the town had shown prior interest in East Point consistent with the stated purpose. The town created a public park on its adjacent parcel in 1986, designated Northeastern’s land as part of a natural resource zoning district in 1991, and issued multiple open space plans documenting residents’ interest in conservation and access to East Point.

The court also noted that the town followed its usual procedures, consulting its advisory and finance committee and issuing a warrant in advance of the town meeting. The taking itself—conservation and access easements—is tailored to the stated purposes and will in fact preserve the land for open space and recreation.

The court acknowledged that the taking was pursued in response to Northeastern’s announcement and would block the project. But it reasoned that preventing development is the very purpose of a conservation easement. Attributing a bad faith motive “solely” focused on blocking the project would ignore the town’s prior interest in the area, conflict with the presumption of validity accorded to legislative acts, and undermine deference to a town’s judgment about when conservation is warranted.

Private Funding Is Not Disqualifying

Northeastern also argued that the taking was improper because it was funded and advocated for by private parties, including the Nahant Preservation Trust, who would incidentally benefit from stopping the project. The court rejected this argument. A taking with a valid public purpose “is not void merely because the disposition of that land indirectly benefits private individuals,” the court held. Evidence that a taking is partially funded by private actors or may incidentally benefit them does not invalidate a proper public purpose.

The Dover Amendment Argument

Northeastern invoked the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40A, § 3, which prohibits municipalities from using zoning to restrict educational uses by nonprofit educational corporations. Northeastern argued that allowing the taking would let the town use eminent domain to sidestep the Dover Amendment’s protections.

The court dismissed the argument. Unlike in the zoning context, the Legislature has not imposed additional limits on a town’s eminent domain authority to take land used for educational purposes. Where the Legislature has imposed no such restriction, public policy does not preclude a taking for a recognized public purpose. The court noted, however, that the town must pay just compensation, unlike in most zoning cases.

Why It Matters

The decision clarifies the scope of municipal eminent domain authority when conservation interests collide with private development plans. Towns may use eminent domain to preserve open space and scenic character even when a taking blocks a project, so long as the town has shown prior interest consistent with the stated purpose and follows proper procedures. The fact that a taking is pursued in response to a development proposal, or that private parties fund or benefit from it, does not alone establish bad faith. The decision also confirms that preventing development is an inherent aspect of conservation easements, not evidence of an improper motive.

The case now returns to the Superior Court for an order establishing the town’s right to take the easements and for proceedings to determine just compensation. The court vacated the award of over $1 million in attorney’s fees and costs to Northeastern.

Read the full opinion: Town of Nahant v. Northeastern University (SJC-13844, September 3, 2026).