We’ve let the lobster boil. We’re the lobster, and we have to stop at some point.”

Giovanni Cicione, co-town solicitor

What Portsmouth is challenging

Portsmouth’s lawsuit asks a Superior Court judge to strike down or block enforcement of a series of state housing laws enacted over the past three years, arguing they intrude on powers of local government guaranteed under Rhode Island’s Home Rule Amendment.

Although town officials have previously referred to “upwards of 60” housing laws enacted by the General Assembly in recent years, the complaint itself specifically identifies 13 acts or legislative packages from 2024 through 2026 that Portsmouth is challenging. Some of those acts contain multiple changes to state land-use laws.

The complaint names the state, Gov. Dan McKee and Attorney General Peter Neronha as defendants. It contends the laws have progressively stripped cities and towns of authority over zoning, planning, subdivision review, environmental protection and permitting.

Among the measures challenged are laws requiring municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units under certain conditions; limiting local inclusionary-zoning requirements; restricting local wetland protections for housing development; requiring residential uses in some commercial districts; allowing townhouses where equivalent multifamily density is permitted; and limiting parking requirements for certain multifamily developments near transit.

The lawsuit also targets state-imposed procedures and deadlines governing local planning and zoning decisions.

At the center of Portsmouth’s argument is Article XIII of the Rhode Island Constitution, which guarantees cities and towns self-government in local matters. The town argues that detailed land-use decisions have traditionally been local functions and do not require statewide uniformity.

The seven-count complaint also alleges that the laws can force municipalities to approve development inconsistent with their state-approved comprehensive plans, impose unfunded mandates, violate due process and equal protection protections, and interfere with local authority over wetlands, drinking-water supplies and coastal areas.

Portsmouth wants the court to declare the challenged provisions void and unenforceable and prevent the state from enforcing them against the town. As an alternative, it asks the court to suspend enforcement while municipalities amend their comprehensive plans and ordinances and assess infrastructure impacts.

PORTSMOUTH — The Town of Portsmouth has taken its fight over state housing mandates to court, filing a lawsuit Thursday that argues a series of laws enacted by the General Assembly has unconstitutionally stripped municipalities of control over local zoning, planning and development.

The complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, filed Thursday morning in Rhode Island Superior Court, names the State of Rhode Island, Gov. Daniel McKee and Attorney General Peter Neronha as defendants.

RELATED: Who’s paying for the fight over housing?

Town officials announced the filing Thursday evening outside Town Hall, where about 40 people gathered as council members and the town’s two solicitors defended a case they said could have implications well beyond Portsmouth.

But the lawsuit has also exposed a sharp local divide. Although the council unanimously agreed in January to explore a possible legal challenge, it voted 5-2 earlier this month to actually file one. Critics question its cost and legal prospects and say Portsmouth should instead work through the General Assembly.

‘Not just a Portsmouth issue’

“This is not just a Portsmouth issue, it’s an issue for all of Rhode Island,” co-Town Solicitor Giovanni Cicione said.

At the center of the case is Article XIII of the Rhode Island Constitution, which establishes home rule for Rhode Island cities and towns. Portsmouth contends that 13 provisions contained in housing laws enacted in 2024, 2025 and 2026 go too far in dictating how municipalities must regulate land use.

“If these laws stand as they’re being enforced right now, then Article 13 … doesn’t mean anything,” Cicione said.

Co-Town Solicitor Joseph Larisa Jr., the lead attorney on the case, called it “a constitutional case.”

Portsmouth is asking the court to declare that certain state requirements improperly interfere with municipal authority and to block enforcement of provisions found to violate home-rule protections.

Until a court acts, however, nothing changes for developers or town boards. Asked whether filing the lawsuit would give Portsmouth’s Planning Board or Zoning Board of Review greater authority to deny pending applications, Cicione said, “The short answer is no.”

“Filing the complaint doesn’t get us there,” he said. “But we have to continue the battle.”

State pushes housing production

The disputed laws are part of an effort by state leaders over the past several years to increase Rhode Island’s housing supply by making it easier to build.

Since 2021, the General Assembly has enacted dozens of housing measures. Among other things, recent laws have expanded opportunities for accessory dwelling units, streamlined permitting and subdivision procedures, encouraged higher-density and mixed-use development, and changed rules governing affordable-housing applications.

State lawmakers have argued that Rhode Island’s longstanding housing shortage requires removing regulatory barriers that make housing more difficult or expensive to build. The state Executive Office of Housing reported this year that nearly 3,800 new housing units were permitted statewide in 2025, the highest annual figure since the 1980s.

Municipal officials around Rhode Island, however, have raised concerns about the cumulative effect of the legislation on local authority. Portsmouth argues statewide mandates can override decisions about density and development that communities have already made through their zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans.

The town’s January resolution contends that a “one-size-fits-all approach” can also fail to adequately account for water and sewer capacity, traffic, public safety, schools and environmental constraints.

Larisa said Thursday that communities are required by state law to undertake an extensive process to develop comprehensive plans, which are reviewed by the state, yet some of the newer housing laws can supersede decisions embodied in those plans. “Several of these laws do not allow the comprehensive plan to operate,” he said.

Larisa acknowledged that housing availability is a statewide issue, but argued that does not necessarily make every decision about where and how housing is built a matter for the state. “We’re going to challenge things of local concerns,” he said.

Cicione offered a more colorful description of what the town sees as the gradual erosion of municipal authority. “We’ve let the lobster boil. We’re the lobster, and we have to stop at some point,” he said. “We can’t let Smith Hill pick the coloring of our siding.”

‘This suit is not about LMI’

David Gleason, town council vice president, stressed that Portsmouth is not opposed to affordable housing.

“Not to say the Town of Portsmouth does not believe in affordable housing — we do,” he said, pointing to examples of low- and moderate-income housing already in town.

Town council member Mary McDowell holds Council Vice President David Gleason’s papers while he reads a statement.

JIM MCGAW

That distinction was challenged by Charles Levesque, a former state lawmaker and town council member who once worked in the town solicitor’s office. Levesque repeatedly challenged the solicitors during Thursday’s press conference, arguing the state has long legislated in areas affecting municipalities.

“Now we have Portsmouth essentially say we’re going to close the door to (LMI) housing,” Levesque said. “And I think that’s wrong.”

Cicione responded, “I don’t want to draw this into a political debate.”

Afterward, Levesque remained critical of the presentation. “I’ve never seen a (town) solicitor advocate for litigation, and they definitely did,” he said.

Other towns sought

Portsmouth is hoping other communities will now formally join the case.

The town’s January resolution has received support from 12 other municipalities — Tiverton, Burrillville, Hopkinton, West Greenwich, Bristol, Smithfield, Lincoln, Middletown, Westerly, Charlestown, East Greenwich and Exeter. That support, however, does not mean those communities have agreed to become plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“No other town has seen the complaint until today,” Larisa said Thursday. “We have 12 on board. We know we’re going to get several more.”

If they sign on, Larisa said, their solicitors could also participate in the case.

The town council has authorized up to $20,000 for the litigation, which Cicione said could ultimately cost $100,000 or more. So far, Hopkinton is the only other community that has committed money — $4,000.

Questions about the cost, along with the role of Portsmouth Concerned Citizens, a local taxpayers group that has strongly advocated for the lawsuit, have become another source of local controversy.

Legal or legislative solution?

The council’s division became official Sept. 14, when it voted 5-2 to proceed immediately with the lawsuit. Council members Juan Carlos Payero and Sandra Blank opposed the motion.

Payero said after Thursday’s press conference the January resolution contemplated several approaches, including working with Portsmouth’s legislative delegation to change the housing laws. He believes the town should pursue that route before embarking on potentially lengthy litigation.

“I think we can get a legislative solution before a legal solution is made,” Payero said.

He called the lawsuit “frivolous litigation” and argued the town's money could instead be used to reduce taxes or improve roads and public safety.

The lawsuit’s supporters contend that Portsmouth needs to act now to prevent what they see as further erosion of local authority. “The General Assembly should stop shoving these decisions down our throats,” Cicione said.

Larisa said the General Assembly could itself help resolve the dispute by reconsidering the laws. He suggested lawmakers could impose a moratorium while the issues are addressed.

Complying with current laws

For now, however, Portsmouth must continue following the laws it is challenging.

“Yes, absolutely,” Cicione said when Levesque asked whether the town was complying with them.

But the town is simultaneously asking a Superior Court judge to determine whether, in the state’s push to build more housing, the General Assembly crossed a constitutional line.