The state’s emergency shelter system cannot insist that families provide third-party verification of certain information — such as proof of their family ties or whether at least one of them lives in Massachusetts — before immediately placing them in shelter, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 16-page ruling followed a 2016 class-action lawsuit in which families and civil rights organizations sued the Department of Housing and Community Development, now the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC), for denying protections to some families who could not immediately provide documentation that a prerequisite for access to emergency housing.

The Emergency Assistance (EA) protection system in Massachusetts is specifically intended to serve families, and the HLC has previously denied groups who could not produce birth certificates or other legal documents proving they were related.6

In every annual budget since 2005, the Legislature has included language that the HLC “shall immediately provide shelter for up to 30 days to families who appear to be eligible for shelter based on statements from the family and any other information in the possession of the executive officer’s office.”

It was the interpretation of this language that is annually rewritten into state law that led the court to their decision.

“The plain language of the immediate placement provision provides that a family must receive immediate temporary placement where it is found that the family meets the eligibility requirements for protection and that the appearance of eligibility can be established at the time of the initial application by statements of family members and of records which is already in the agency’s possession. Third-party verification of eligibility criteria is not required at the time of the initial application,” said the decision written by Supreme Court Associate Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian.

Kelly Turley of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said the 30 days families have after being immediately placed into shelter often gives them time to either find or restore lost documents, or find other avenues to prove relationship and residence.

“In some cases, families are actively fleeing domestic violence, or they’ve experienced a fire, or they’ve doubled up and their belongings have been lost in the shuffle, or someone has stolen them, so the key documents requested to prove ongoing eligibility may not be ready at the time of application,” Turley said.

She later added, “The legislative intent is to ensure that families who are eligible for shelter can access it in a timely manner. . . . We think it is very important that the SJC has made clear to the administration that families who appear to be eligible should be placed immediately.”

Although Turley celebrated the decision, she said it’s less effective now than it would have been in 2016, when Gov. Charlie Baker’s administration was overseeing state agencies, to actually get families into shelters faster.

Since the trial began, the landscape surrounding EA shelters has changed significantly. Following a surge in demand that started in late fall 2022, the Healey administration has implemented a number of strict restrictions on access to shelter for the 7,500 families who find temporary housing in the state-run facilities.

In the past year and a half, Gov. Maura Healey, in an effort to control rising costs, imposed a cap of 7,500 families. Others seeking protection are put on a waiting list, now called a “contact list”. The governor also imposed a nine-month limit on how long families can stay, as well as a controversial policy that allows families to stay in flood shelters for up to five days but then disqualifies them from seeking more traditional shelter for six months.

Turley said that because most families move on to the waiting list when they apply for shelter instead of immediately to temporary housing, the SJC decision likely won’t have as much of an impact.

“Even if a family is presumptively approved for a full EA placement, they may wait days, weeks or months to actually be placed. So in those cases, the 30-day period — they may be out of coverage during that time anyway, because it there isn’t a place available for them, says Turley.

She and other providers have advocated for the restrictions on EA, and Turley said Thursday that she hopes they will be lifted in the future, and then the SJC decision will have a greater impact on protecting families fleeing dangerous situations to find a safe place to live immediately.

Asked to comment on the decision, an HLC spokesman said: “We are reviewing the SJC’s decision and the operational impact it may have on the Emergency Assistance program.”