The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by eleven Rockport, Massachusetts residents who challenged the creation of a new zoning district in their town. The appeals court ruled that the residents lacked standing to pursue their state statutory and federal constitutional claims against the Town of Rockport.
In *Kolackovsky v. Town of Rockport*, decided Jan. 22, 2026, Circuit Judge Dunlap wrote for the three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Montecalvo and Rikelman. The case arose from the town's creation of a new zoning district, which prompted the residents to file various legal challenges in federal court.
The plaintiffs-appellants include John T. Kolackovsky, Zenas B. Seppala, Anne Hyde, Robert Sonia, Jonathan Ring, Tim Rose, Ray Thursby, Dee Oliberio, Calandra Salo, Lary Salo, and Cassi Hohenwarter. According to court filings, all eleven are residents, registered voters, and taxpayers in Rockport. A subset of the plaintiffs reside on property abutting the Rockport commuter train station or within the overlay district that became the subject of the dispute.
The legal challenge centers on Massachusetts zoning law requirements. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Sections 1A and 3A, municipalities must have zoning ordinances or bylaws that provide for high-density, multi-family housing districts within a half mile of mass transit stations. These districts must allow such housing "of-right," meaning without requiring special permits or discretionary approval.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, presided over by Judge Myong J. Joun, initially dismissed the residents' claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court specifically found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their lawsuit.
Standing is a fundamental requirement in federal court that requires plaintiffs to demonstrate they have suffered a concrete injury that is traceable to the defendant's conduct and can be redressed by a favorable court decision. Without standing, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear a case, regardless of the merits of the underlying legal claims.
On appeal to the First Circuit, the residents argued that the district court erred in finding they lacked standing. However, the appeals court disagreed with the residents' position. "Because we agree that the residents have not alleged the necessary prerequisites to establish standing, we affirm the district court's order," Judge Dunlap wrote in the opinion.
The First Circuit's decision means the residents cannot proceed with their federal constitutional and state statutory challenges to the zoning district creation. The court's ruling effectively ends the federal litigation without reaching the substance of the residents' claims about the zoning district.
The case illustrates the procedural hurdles that can face local residents seeking to challenge municipal zoning decisions in federal court. Standing requirements often prove difficult for residents to satisfy, particularly when challenging local land use decisions that may affect property values or neighborhood character rather than causing direct, concrete harm to specific individuals.
Michael C. Walsh and Walsh & Walsh LLP represented the appellants in the case. The Town of Rockport was represented by Deborah I. Ecker, Amy E. Kwesell and KP Law, P.C.
The dispute reflects broader tensions in Massachusetts communities over state-mandated housing requirements designed to increase affordable housing near transit stations. These requirements, known as MBTA Communities zoning laws, have generated controversy in some suburban towns that resist higher-density development.
While the specific details of the residents' claims were not fully detailed in the available court documents, their challenge appears to have targeted how Rockport implemented the state's mandatory zoning requirements for transit-oriented housing districts.
The First Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal means the zoning district creation will stand, at least as far as federal court challenges are concerned. The residents would need to pursue any remaining legal options through state courts or local administrative processes.
The case number is 25-1275 in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was issued on Jan. 22, 2026, and represents a final ruling on the appeal unless the residents seek further review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would require filing a petition for certiorari.
For now, the Town of Rockport's creation of the new zoning district remains intact following the federal appeals court's ruling that the challenging residents could not demonstrate the legal standing necessary to pursue their lawsuit in federal court.