Fourteenth Amendment standard in Maryland

2024Indeed, although it is “possible” that sufficiently “reckless and irresponsible” actions like “shooting into a crowd at close range” could rise to the level of a Fourteenth Amendment violation, see Rucker, 946 F.2d at 282 (speculating about the possibility in dicta), the parties have cited no case decided by the time of the shooting here that had reached such a conclusion.

2024Indeed, although it is “possible” that sufficiently “reckless and irresponsible” actions like “shooting into a crowd at close range” could rise to the level of a Fourteenth Amendment violation, see Rucker, 946 F.2d at 282 (speculating about the possibility in dicta), the parties have cited no case decided by the time of the shooting here that had reached such a conclusion.

2024Substantive due process, by contrast, refers “to the principle that there are certain liberties protected by the due process clauses [of Article 24 and the United States Constitution] from legislative restrictions, regardless of the procedures provided, unless those restrictions are narrowly tailored to satisfy an important government interest.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Allmond v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 448 Md. 592, 609-10 (2016)). 4 substantive protections may exist under the federal Constitution.5 Such claims are pure Fourteenth Amendment claims, subject to the Fourte

2024Substantive due process, by contrast, refers “to the principle that there are certain liberties protected by the due process clauses [of Article 24 and the United States Constitution] from legislative restrictions, regardless of the procedures provided, unless those restrictions are narrowly tailored to satisfy an important government interest.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Allmond v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 448 Md. 592, 609-10 (2016)). 4 substantive protections may exist under the federal Constitution.5 Such claims are pure Fourteenth Amendment claims, subject to the Fourte

2017See, e.g., Oku, 433 Md. at 588-89 , 72 A.3d at 541-42 (declining to consider petitioner’s Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claim because petitioner failed to raise either issue in the trial court, and therefore did not properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Balt Teachers Union v. Bd. of Edu., 379 Md. 192, 205 , 840 A.2d 728, 736 (2004) (“Since the constitutional issue raised in the [petitioner’s] brief was not raised in the trial court, we shall decline to address it.”).

2017See, e.g., Oku, 433 Md. at 588-89 , 72 A.3d at 541-42 (declining to consider petitioner’s Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claim because petitioner failed to raise either issue in the trial court, and therefore did not properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Balt Teachers Union v. Bd. of Edu., 379 Md. 192, 205 , 840 A.2d 728, 736 (2004) (“Since the constitutional issue raised in the [petitioner’s] brief was not raised in the trial court, we shall decline to address it.”).

2017In interpreting the due process guarantees of Article 24, we have only departed from the Fourteenth Amendment standard “when fundamental fairness demanded that we do so.” Washington v. State, 450 Md. 319, 341 , 148 A.3d 341 (2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).

2017In interpreting the due process guarantees of Article 24, we have only departed from the Fourteenth Amendment standard “when fundamental fairness demanded that we do so.” Washington v. State, 450 Md. 319, 341 , 148 A.3d 341 (2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).

2017See, e.g., Oku, 433 Md. at 588-89 , 72 A.3d at 541-42 (declining to consider petitioner’s Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claim because petitioner failed to raise either issue in the trial court, and therefore did not properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Balt Teachers Union v. Bd. of Edu., 379 Md. 192, 205 , 840 A.2d 728, 736 (2004) (“Since the constitutional issue raised in the [petitioner’s] brief was not raised in the trial court, we shall decline to address it.”).

2017See, e.g., Oku, 433 Md. at 588-89 , 72 A.3d at 541-42 (declining to consider petitioner’s Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claim because petitioner failed to raise either issue in the trial court, and therefore did not properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Balt Teachers Union v. Bd. of Edu., 379 Md. 192, 205 , 840 A.2d 728, 736 (2004) (“Since the constitutional issue raised in the [petitioner’s] brief was not raised in the trial court, we shall decline to address it.”).

2013See In re Legislative Districting of the State, 370 Md. 312, 370 , 805 A.2d 292, 326 (2002) (explaining that the due regard must yield to other constitutional requirements or federal requirements where they conflict); In re Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 615 , 629 A.2d 646, 667 (1993) (holding same).

2013See In re Legislative Districting of the State, 370 Md. 312, 370 , 805 A.2d 292, 326 (2002) (explaining that the due regard must yield to other constitutional requirements or federal requirements where they conflict); In re Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 615 , 629 A.2d 646, 667 (1993) (holding same).

2013See In re Legislative Districting of the State, 370 Md. 312, 370 , 805 A.2d 292, 326 (2002) (explaining that the due regard must yield to other constitutional requirements or federal requirements where they conflict); In re Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 615 , 629 A.2d 646, 667 (1993) (holding same).

2013See In re Legislative Districting of the State, 370 Md. 312, 370 , 805 A.2d 292, 326 (2002) (explaining that the due regard must yield to other constitutional requirements or federal requirements where they conflict); In re Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 615 , 629 A.2d 646, 667 (1993) (holding same).

1982See Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).