rational basis test in Maryland

2022Where the strict scrutiny lens is appropriately applied, challenged laws “rarely survive the legal glare.” Id. at 346-47 (quoting Conaway, 401 Md. at 273 ).8 7 Our review of the record unequivocally shows that at no point did the Licensees request rational basis, heightened rational basis, or intermediate scrutiny review. 8 Under the rational basis test, the challenged statute is presumed constitutional, and will be upheld as such “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [we] can only conclude

2015“A statutory classification reviewed under the rational basis standard of review,” explained the Court of Appeals, “enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly arbitrary.” Id. at 356, 601 A.2d 102 .

2003Generally, a court will not overturn a legislative classification under a rational basis standard `unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational.' Id., at 355 , 601 A.2d at 108 , quoting from Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 471 , 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406 , 115 L.Ed.2d 410, 430 (1991), quoting, in turn, Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 939, 943 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 176 (1979).

2003Generally, a court will not overturn a legislative classification under a rational basis standard `unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational.' Id., at 355 , 601 A.2d at 108 , quoting from Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 471 , 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406 , 115 L.Ed.2d 410, 430 (1991), quoting, in turn, Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 939, 943 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 176 (1979).

2010See also id. at 104-05, 626 A.2d at 379-80 (collecting cases where we applied the rational basis test to invalidate statutes regulating occupations, because the classification schemes were essentially arbitrary).

2010See also id. at 104-05, 626 A.2d at 379-80 (collecting cases where we applied the rational basis test to invalidate statutes regulating occupations, because the classification schemes were essentially arbitrary).

2003Generally, a court will not overturn a legislative classification under a rational basis standard `unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational.' Id., at 355 , 601 A.2d at 108 , quoting from Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 471 , 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406 , 115 L.Ed.2d 410, 430 (1991), quoting, in turn, Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 939, 943 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 176 (1979).

2003Generally, a court will not overturn a legislative classification under a rational basis standard `unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational.' Id., at 355 , 601 A.2d at 108 , quoting from Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 471 , 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406 , 115 L.Ed.2d 410, 430 (1991), quoting, in turn, Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 939, 943 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 176 (1979).

2020Id. at 425-26 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 33 We disagree with the Food Trucks’ contention that Exxon is a “constitutional outlier.” We reaffirm that, under Article 24, an economic regulation that does not affect an important personal right at all is reviewed under the rational basis test.

2020See, e.g., Exxon, 279 Md. at 425 - 26; Tyler v. City of College Park, 415 Md. 475, 500-01 (2010); Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists, 268 Md. 32, 48 (1973).

1987As recently pointed out by Judge Rodowsky for the Court in Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Coupard, supra, 304 Md. at 352, 499 A.2d 178 , under such a rational basis test, a statutory classification “enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality, [and] can be invalidated only if the classification is without any reasonable basis and is purely arbitrary.

1987As recently pointed out by Judge Rodowsky for the Court in Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Coupard, supra, 304 Md. at 352, 499 A.2d 178 , under such a rational basis test, a statutory classification “enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality, [and] can be invalidated only if the classification is without any reasonable basis and is purely arbitrary.

2013See Dep’t of Transp. v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392, 409 , 474 A.2d 191 (1984) (“In reviewing statutory distinctions based on territory, the rational basis test applies because no fundamental right or suspect class is affected.”).

2013See Dep’t of Transp. v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392, 409 , 474 A.2d 191 (1984) (“In reviewing statutory distinctions based on territory, the rational basis test applies because no fundamental right or suspect class is affected.”).

2010Nevertheless, our cases demonstrate that rational basis review is not "`toothless.'" Waldron, 289 Md. at 710 , 426 A.2d at 944 , quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510 , 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 49 L.Ed.2d 651, 664 (1976). *446 In Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683 , 426 A.2d 929 , we applied the rational basis test to invalidate a statute that prohibited retired judges from practicing law if they accepted their pensions.

2010Nevertheless, our cases demonstrate that rational basis review is not "`toothless.'" Waldron, 289 Md. at 710 , 426 A.2d at 944 , quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510 , 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 49 L.Ed.2d 651, 664 (1976). *446 In Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683 , 426 A.2d 929 , we applied the rational basis test to invalidate a statute that prohibited retired judges from practicing law if they accepted their pensions.

2005As to State equal protection, we concluded that neither Article VIII nor Article III, § 52 of the Maryland Constitution established a fundamental right for equal protection purposes, that the equal protection issue was therefore to be judged under the rational basis test, and that “the legislative objective of preserving and promoting local control over education is both a legitimate state interest and one to which the present financing system is reasonably related.” Id. at 654, 458 A.2d at 788 .

1990We noted, for example, that the Court of Appeals in Hornbeck v. Somerset County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 597 , 458 A.2d *154 758 (1983) “implicitly recognized that significant interference with the ‘right to take advantage of a thorough and efficient education’ would merit heightened scrutiny,” despite the fact that the Supreme Court had applied only the rational basis test in analyzing the same right under the fourteenth amendment in Rodriguez, supra. 16 We begin our analysis of the cap under Article 24 by reiterating that the right involved here — the right to be compensated fully for noneconom

2007We stated as follows: ‘We have not hesitated to carefully examine a statute and declare it invalid if we .cannot discern a rational basis for its enactment. ‘The vitality of this State’s equal protection doctrine is demonstrated by our decisions which, although applying the deferential standard embodied in the rational basis test, have nevertheless invalidated many legislative classifications which impinged on privileges cherished by our citizens.’ ” 6 Id., at 315 , 761 A.2d at 333 (quoting Verzi v. Baltimore County, 333 Md. 411, 419 , 635 A.2d 967, 971 (1994)).

2007We stated as follows: ‘We have not hesitated to carefully examine a statute and declare it invalid if we .cannot discern a rational basis for its enactment. ‘The vitality of this State’s equal protection doctrine is demonstrated by our decisions which, although applying the deferential standard embodied in the rational basis test, have nevertheless invalidated many legislative classifications which impinged on privileges cherished by our citizens.’ ” 6 Id., at 315 , 761 A.2d at 333 (quoting Verzi v. Baltimore County, 333 Md. 411, 419 , 635 A.2d 967, 971 (1994)).

2006Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 579 , 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2484 , 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that the Equal Protection Clause is “essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike” (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 , 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254 , 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985))); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 , 120 S.Ct. 1073, 1074 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000); Broadwater, 306 Md. at 602 , 510 A.2d at 585 (1986) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 , 105 S.Ct. 3249,

2006Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 579 , 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2484 , 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that the Equal Protection Clause is “essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike” (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 , 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254 , 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985))); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 , 120 S.Ct. 1073, 1074 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000); Broadwater, 306 Md. at 602 , 510 A.2d at 585 (1986) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 , 105 S.Ct. 3249,

1991As we have stated, “[a] statutory classification tested by the rational basis standard enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and a reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality is sufficient to sustain it.” State v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 299 Md. 310, 328 , 473 A.2d 892, 901 , appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 802 , 105 S.Ct. 56 , 83 L.Ed.2d 7 (1984).

1991As we have stated, “[a] statutory classification tested by the rational basis standard enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and a reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality is sufficient to sustain it.” State v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 299 Md. 310, 328 , 473 A.2d 892, 901 , appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 802 , 105 S.Ct. 56 , 83 L.Ed.2d 7 (1984).

2000Although we have traditionally accorded legislative determinations a strong presumption of constitutionality, Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. at 356 , 601 A.2d at 114 ; Briscoe v. Prince George’s Health Dep’t, 323 *316 Md. 439, 448, 593 A.2d 1109, 1113 (1991), we have also required that a legislative classification rest upon ‘some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation.’ State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn, 270 Md. 496, 507 , 312 A.2d 216, 222 (1973).” After reviewing several prior decisions of this Court invalidating discriminations among Mar

1994Although we have traditionally accorded legislative determinations a strong presumption of constitutionality, Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. at 356 , 601 A.2d at 114 ; Briscoe v. Prince George’s Health Dep’t, 323 Md. 439, 448 , 593 A.2d 1109, 1113 (1991), we have also required that a legislative classification rest upon “some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation.” State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn, 270 Md. 496, 507 , 312 A.2d 216, 222 (1973). *420 In Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace v. Johnson, 143 Md. 601 , 123 A. 65 (1923), the

2000Although we have traditionally accorded legislative determinations a strong presumption of constitutionality, Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. at 356 , 601 A.2d at 114 ; Briscoe v. Prince George’s Health Dep’t, 323 *316 Md. 439, 448, 593 A.2d 1109, 1113 (1991), we have also required that a legislative classification rest upon ‘some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation.’ State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn, 270 Md. 496, 507 , 312 A.2d 216, 222 (1973).” After reviewing several prior decisions of this Court invalidating discriminations among Mar

2000Although we have traditionally accorded legislative determinations a strong presumption of constitutionality, Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. at 356 , 601 A.2d at 114 ; Briscoe v. Prince George’s Health Dep’t, 323 *316 Md. 439, 448, 593 A.2d 1109, 1113 (1991), we have also required that a legislative classification rest upon ‘some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation.’ State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn, 270 Md. 496, 507 , 312 A.2d 216, 222 (1973).” After reviewing several prior decisions of this Court invalidating discriminations among Mar

2009"Under the rational basis test, a statutory classification enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality," Armacost, 299 Md. at 409 , 474 A.2d at 200 , and "will not be held void if there are any considerations relating to the public welfare by which it can be supported," Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists, 268 Md. 32, 48 , 300 A.2d 367, 378 (1973).

2009"Under the rational basis test, a statutory classification enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality," Armacost, 299 Md. at 409 , 474 A.2d at 200 , and "will not be held void if there are any considerations relating to the public welfare by which it can be supported," Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists, 268 Md. 32, 48 , 300 A.2d 367, 378 (1973).

2010See Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder , 435 F.Supp. 2d 481 , 498-501 (D.Md. 2006), aff'd , 475 F.3d 180 (4 th Cir. 2007). *Page 84

2010See Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 435 F.Supp. 2d 481, 498-501 (D.Md. 2006), aff’d, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007).

2010See Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder , 435 F.Supp. 2d 481 , 498-501 (D.Md. 2006), aff'd , 475 F.3d 180 (4 th Cir. 2007). *Page 84

2010See Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 435 F.Supp. 2d 481, 498-501 (D.Md. 2006), aff’d, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007).

2022Where the strict scrutiny lens is appropriately applied, challenged laws “rarely survive the legal glare.” Id. at 346-47 (quoting Conaway, 401 Md. at 273 ).8 7 Our review of the record unequivocally shows that at no point did the Licensees request rational basis, heightened rational basis, or intermediate scrutiny review. 8 Under the rational basis test, the challenged statute is presumed constitutional, and will be upheld as such “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [we] can only conclude

2022Where the strict scrutiny lens is appropriately applied, challenged laws “rarely survive the legal glare.” Id. at 346-47 (quoting Conaway, 401 Md. at 273 ).8 7 Our review of the record unequivocally shows that at no point did the Licensees request rational basis, heightened rational basis, or intermediate scrutiny review. 8 Under the rational basis test, the challenged statute is presumed constitutional, and will be upheld as such “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [we] can only conclude

2019And when applying the traditional rational basis test under Article 24, courts "perform a very limited function, resisting interference unless it is shown that the legislature exercised its police power arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably." Tyler , 415 Md. at 500 , 3 A.3d 421 . *171 b.

2019And when applying the traditional rational basis test under Article 24, courts "perform a very limited function, resisting interference unless it is shown that the legislature exercised its police power arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably." Tyler , 415 Md. at 500 , 3 A.3d 421 . *171 b.

2010Nevertheless, our cases demonstrate that rational basis review is not "`toothless.'" Waldron, 289 Md. at 710 , 426 A.2d at 944 , quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510 , 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 49 L.Ed.2d 651, 664 (1976). *446 In Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683 , 426 A.2d 929 , we applied the rational basis test to invalidate a statute that prohibited retired judges from practicing law if they accepted their pensions.

2010Nevertheless, our cases demonstrate that rational basis review is not "`toothless.'" Waldron, 289 Md. at 710 , 426 A.2d at 944 , quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510 , 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 49 L.Ed.2d 651, 664 (1976). *446 In Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683 , 426 A.2d 929 , we applied the rational basis test to invalidate a statute that prohibited retired judges from practicing law if they accepted their pensions.

2004The Court acknowledged that the provision ”work[ed] at least some discrimination” against strikers as compared to "voluntary quitters,” but explained that, under the rational basis test, "even if the statute provides only rough justice, its treatment ... is far from irrational.” Id. at 371-72 , 108 S.Ct. at 1192-93 , 99 L.Ed.2d at 392 (quoting Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471 , 97 S.Ct. 1898 , 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (1977))(internal quotations omitted).

2004The Court acknowledged that the provision ”work[ed] at least some discrimination” against strikers as compared to "voluntary quitters,” but explained that, under the rational basis test, "even if the statute provides only rough justice, its treatment ... is far from irrational.” Id. at 371-72 , 108 S.Ct. at 1192-93 , 99 L.Ed.2d at 392 (quoting Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471 , 97 S.Ct. 1898 , 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (1977))(internal quotations omitted).

1992Speculation regarding other arrangements that might be used to spread the risk of liability in ways different from the Price-Anderson Act is, of course, not pertinent to the equal protection analysis.” Other cases applying a traditional rational basis analysis when reviewing classifications created by legislative caps on recoverable tort damages, and holding that the legislation did not violate equal protection principles, include, e.g., Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir.1989); Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191, 1196-1197 (4th Cir.1989); Hoffman v. United States, 767 F.2d 1431, 1435-

1992Speculation regarding other arrangements that might be used to spread the risk of liability in ways different from the Price-Anderson Act is, of course, not pertinent to the equal protection analysis.” Other cases applying a traditional rational basis analysis when reviewing classifications created by legislative caps on recoverable tort damages, and holding that the legislation did not violate equal protection principles, include, e.g., Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir.1989); Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191, 1196-1197 (4th Cir.1989); Hoffman v. United States, 767 F.2d 1431, 1435-

1992Speculation regarding other arrangements that might be used to spread the risk of liability in ways different from the Price-Anderson Act is, of course, not pertinent to the equal protection analysis.” Other cases applying a traditional rational basis analysis when reviewing classifications created by legislative caps on recoverable tort damages, and holding that the legislation did not violate equal protection principles, include, e.g., Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir.1989); Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191, 1196-1197 (4th Cir.1989); Hoffman v. United States, 767 F.2d 1431, 1435-

1992Speculation regarding other arrangements that might be used to spread the risk of liability in ways different from the Price-Anderson Act is, of course, not pertinent to the equal protection analysis." Other cases applying a traditional rational basis analysis when reviewing classifications created by legislative caps on recoverable tort damages, and holding that the legislation did not violate equal protection principles, include, e.g., Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir.1989); Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191, 1196-1197 (4th Cir.1989); Hoffman v. United States, 767 F.2d 1431, 1435-

1990Citing the Supreme Court’s use of the rational basis test in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1977), 14 and San *153 Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973), 15 and the use of the test by nearly every federal court examining the various state caps, we concluded in Potomac Electric that the rational basis test was the appropriate one for analyzing § 11-108(b) under the fourteenth amendment. 79 Md.App. at 632 , 558 A.2d 768 .

1990Citing the Supreme Court’s use of the rational basis test in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1977), 14 and San *153 Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973), 15 and the use of the test by nearly every federal court examining the various state caps, we concluded in Potomac Electric that the rational basis test was the appropriate one for analyzing § 11-108(b) under the fourteenth amendment. 79 Md.App. at 632 , 558 A.2d 768 .

2009The constitution does not demand that the Legislature "`strike at all evils at the same time or in the same way.'" See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 466 , 101 S.Ct. 715, 725 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659, 670 (1981) (quoting Semler v. Or.

2009The constitution does not demand that the Legislature "`strike at all evils at the same time or in the same way.'" See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 466 , 101 S.Ct. 715, 725 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659, 670 (1981) (quoting Semler v. Or.