home rule in Maryland

2003XI-A home rule counties,” citing generally, Board of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 344 , 558 A.2d 724, 730 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 384 , 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Town of Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 342 , 435 A.2d 425, 431 (1981); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 597-598 , 415 A.2d 255, 256 (1980).

2003XI-A home rule counties,” citing generally, Board of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 344 , 558 A.2d 724, 730 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 384 , 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Town of Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 342 , 435 A.2d 425, 431 (1981); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 597-598 , 415 A.2d 255, 256 (1980).

2022“Its purpose was to transfer the General Assembly’s power to enact many types of county public local laws to the [Article] XI-A home rule counties.” McCrory, 319 Md. at 16 .

2022“Its purpose was to transfer the General Assembly’s power to enact many types of county public local laws to the [Article] XI-A home rule counties.” McCrory, 319 Md. at 16 .

2022On a number of occasions, we have pointed out that Article XI-A, which we commonly refer to as the Home Rule Amendment, enabled Baltimore City and counties “which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination.” Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623, 633 (2003) (quoting Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., 377 Md. 305, 313 (2003)) (additional quotations omitted).

2022On a number of occasions, we have pointed out that Article XI-A, which we commonly refer to as the Home Rule Amendment, enabled Baltimore City and counties “which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination.” Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623, 633 (2003) (quoting Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., 377 Md. 305, 313 (2003)) (additional quotations omitted).

2009As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, Article XI-A enabled Baltimore City and counties " ‘which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination.’ ” Holiday Universal v. Montgomery County, 377 Md. 305, 313 , 833 A.2d 518, 523 (2003), quoting Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497, 504 , 801 A.2d 148, 152 (2002).

2009As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, Article XI-A enabled Baltimore City and counties " ‘which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination.’ ” Holiday Universal v. Montgomery County, 377 Md. 305, 313 , 833 A.2d 518, 523 (2003), quoting Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497, 504 , 801 A.2d 148, 152 (2002).

2022In McCrory, we explained that the purpose of Article XI-A was to secure a “larger measure of home rule . . . to the people of the respective political subdivisions of the state in matters of purely local concern, in order that there should be the fullest measure of local self-government, and that these local 27 questions should thus be withdrawn from consideration by the General Assembly. . . .” Id. (quoting State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 422 (1927)).

2022In McCrory, we explained that the purpose of Article XI-A was to secure a “larger measure of home rule . . . to the people of the respective political subdivisions of the state in matters of purely local concern, in order that there should be the fullest measure of local self-government, and that these local 27 questions should thus be withdrawn from consideration by the General Assembly. . . .” Id. (quoting State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 422 (1927)).

2025Board of Supervisors of Elections of Anne Arundel County v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220, 241 , 608 A.2d 1222, 1232 (1992).” Atkinson I, 428 Md. at 749 , 53 A.3d at 1199-1200 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

2025Board of Supervisors of Elections of Anne Arundel County v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220, 241 , 608 A.2d 1222, 1232 (1992).” Atkinson I, 428 Md. at 749 , 53 A.3d at 1199-1200 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

2022White Lab., Inc. v. Blackburn, 372 Md. 160 , 167–68 (2002) (“As made clear by the language of Article XI- A, § 3 of the Constitution . . . the law making authority of a home rule county is limited to the power to enact local laws of said . . .

2022White Lab., Inc. v. Blackburn, 372 Md. 160 , 167–68 (2002) (“As made clear by the language of Article XI- A, § 3 of the Constitution . . . the law making authority of a home rule county is limited to the power to enact local laws of said . . .

2025XI-A, § 1, the referendum power is implicitly reserved to the people and is “incorporated into a home rule charter without an express grant of - 21 - legislative power, provided that it did not violate any other provision of the Home Rule Amendment.” Cheeks, 287 Md. at 612 , 415 A.2d at 264 .

2025XI-A, § 1, the referendum power is implicitly reserved to the people and is “incorporated into a home rule charter without an express grant of - 21 - legislative power, provided that it did not violate any other provision of the Home Rule Amendment.” Cheeks, 287 Md. at 612 , 415 A.2d at 264 .

2003XI-A home rule counties,” citing generally, Board of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 344 , 558 A.2d 724, 730 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 384 , 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Town of Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 342 , 435 A.2d 425, 431 (1981); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 597-598 , 415 A.2d 255, 256 (1980).

2003XI-A home rule counties,” citing generally, Board of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 344 , 558 A.2d 724, 730 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 384 , 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Town of Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 342 , 435 A.2d 425, 431 (1981); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 597-598 , 415 A.2d 255, 256 (1980).

2022On a number of occasions, we have pointed out that Article XI-A, which we commonly refer to as the Home Rule Amendment, enabled Baltimore City and counties “which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination.” Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623, 633 (2003) (quoting Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., 377 Md. 305, 313 (2003)) (additional quotations omitted).

2022On a number of occasions, we have pointed out that Article XI-A, which we commonly refer to as the Home Rule Amendment, enabled Baltimore City and counties “which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination.” Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623, 633 (2003) (quoting Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., 377 Md. 305, 313 (2003)) (additional quotations omitted).

2020In other words, although a broad police power granted to a home rule jurisdiction might sometimes encompass the authority to charge regulatory fees if those fees have a sufficient nexus to the purpose of a regulation imposed under that police power, cf. Eastern Diversified Properties, 319 Md. at 51, 53 (implying that was the case for charter counties), that was not the rule under the stricter Gen. 94] 105 requirements in Article XI-E, § 5.

1997Characterizing Ch. 1041 as “an act of the General Assembly exercising its plenary taxing authority[]” (City’s brief at 16), the City states “that the Express Powers Act has never provided to chartered counties a general taxing power” (id. at 13), citing Eastern Diversified v. Montgomery County, 319 Md. 45, 50 , 570 A.2d 850, 852 (1990).

2003XI-A home rule counties,” citing generally, Board of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 344 , 558 A.2d 724, 730 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 384 , 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Town of Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 342 , 435 A.2d 425, 431 (1981); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 597-598 , 415 A.2d 255, 256 (1980).

2003XI-A home rule counties,” citing generally, Board of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 344 , 558 A.2d 724, 730 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 384 , 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Town of Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 342 , 435 A.2d 425, 431 (1981); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 597-598 , 415 A.2d 255, 256 (1980).

1998It recognizes the power of a county council in a home rule county to enact local ordinances to maintain “the peace, good government, health and welfare of the county,” Code, Art. 25A, § 5(S), and gives charter counties and Baltimore City “a wide array of legislative and administrative powers over local affairs.” Ritchmount, 283 Md. at 57 , 388 A.2d 523 ; see Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 610-11 , 415 A.2d 255 (1980).

1998It recognizes the power of a county council in a home rule county to enact local ordinances to maintain “the peace, good government, health and welfare of the county,” Code, Art. 25A, § 5(S), and gives charter counties and Baltimore City “a wide array of legislative and administrative powers over local affairs.” Ritchmount, 283 Md. at 57 , 388 A.2d 523 ; see Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 610-11 , 415 A.2d 255 (1980).

2003Instead, the “General Assembly has preempted this area by Art. 2B of the Code,” Coalition v. Annapolis Lodge, 333 Md. 359 , 362 n. 1, 635 A.2d 412 , 413 n. 1 (1994).

2003Instead, the “General Assembly has preempted this area by Art. 2B of the Code,” Coalition v. Annapolis Lodge, 333 Md. 359 , 362 n. 1, 635 A.2d 412 , 413 n. 1 (1994).

2025Board of Supervisors of Elections of Anne Arundel County v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220, 241 , 608 A.2d 1222, 1232 (1992).” Atkinson I, 428 Md. at 749 , 53 A.3d at 1199-1200 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

2025Board of Supervisors of Elections of Anne Arundel County v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220, 241 , 608 A.2d 1222, 1232 (1992).” Atkinson I, 428 Md. at 749 , 53 A.3d at 1199-1200 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

2025As the Supreme Court of Maryland stated, “the distinction that is made between defense of the home and defense of the person is merely that in the former there is no duty to retreat.” DeVaughn v. State, 232 Md. 447, 454 (1963) (citing Crawford, 231 Md. at 361–62).

2012My colleagues assert that our statement in City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 347 Md. 1 , 698 A.2d 523 (1997) that, "[t]he budgetary and appropriation system is a fundamental aspect of the form and structure of a home rule county's government[,j” id. at 15 , 698 A.2d at 530 (internal quotations omitted), stands for the principle that a charter amendment purporting to direct the County Council to appropriate funds in a certain manner, in this case consistent with an arbitrator’s award, is proper charter material.

2012My colleagues assert that our statement in City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 347 Md. 1 , 698 A.2d 523 (1997) that, "[t]he budgetary and appropriation system is a fundamental aspect of the form and structure of a home rule county's government[,j” id. at 15 , 698 A.2d at 530 (internal quotations omitted), stands for the principle that a charter amendment purporting to direct the County Council to appropriate funds in a certain manner, in this case consistent with an arbitrator’s award, is proper charter material.

2011In declaring Sections 7-2502.02(a)(4) (prohibiting the registration of handguns, without a home exception) and 22-4504(a) (prohibiting carrying a handgun within one's home, without a license) unconstitutional, the Court emphasized that handguns were "overwhelmingly chosen by American society" for self-defense and determined that under any standard of scrutiny, "banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family, would fail constitutional muster." Id. at 628-29 , 128 S.Ct. at 2817-18 , 171 L.Ed.2d at 679 (citation omitted) (int

2011In declaring Sections 7-2502.02(a)(4) (prohibiting the registration of handguns, without a home exception) and 22-4504(a) (prohibiting carrying a handgun within one's home, without a license) unconstitutional, the Court emphasized that handguns were "overwhelmingly chosen by American society" for self-defense and determined that under any standard of scrutiny, "banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family, would fail constitutional muster." Id. at 628-29 , 128 S.Ct. at 2817-18 , 171 L.Ed.2d at 679 (citation omitted) (int

2007See, e.g. , May Dep't Stores v. Montgomery County , 118 Md.

2002Article XI-A, or the Home Rule Amendment as it is sometimes called, “enables those counties adopting a home rule charter to enjoy a significant amount of self-governance by transferring the General Assembly’s power to enact many types of public local laws to the home rule counties themselves.” Montrose Christian School v. Walsh, 363 Md. 565, 579 , 770 A.2d 111, 119 (2001) (emphasis supplied).

2002Article XI-A, or the Home Rule Amendment as it is sometimes called, “enables those counties adopting a home rule charter to enjoy a significant amount of self-governance by transferring the General Assembly’s power to enact many types of public local laws to the home rule counties themselves.” Montrose Christian School v. Walsh, 363 Md. 565, 579 , 770 A.2d 111, 119 (2001) (emphasis supplied).