Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 788 F. Supp. 2d 431

Montgomery County funded twenty LFRD administrative positions while regulators treated LFRDs as separate entities under COMCOR § 21-16.
Budget Resolution 16-373 funded $592,000 for LFRD admin staff, contingent on a council-approved savings plan.
Leggett proposed FY2011 savings plan to offset EMST fee loss, proposing sweeping cuts including LFRD admin funding.
Council adopted Budget Resolution No. 17-17 cutting $32,249,170 from FY2011 budget, with only $592,000 affecting LFRD admin funding.
LFRDs' leadership opposed Bill 13-10; Bowers issued RIF guidance to LFRDs after funding was cut.
Plaintiffs—LFRDs and former admin employees—allege retaliation against opposition to ambulance fee legislation and sue Montgomery County and officials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First Amendment/Article 40 claims survive when challenging a facially valid budget law	Plaintiffs argue retaliation for EMST opposition.	O'Brien doctrine bars motive-based challenge to facially constitutional statute.	Claims dismissed; motive evidence insufficient to invalidate facial statute.
Whether defendants retain legislative immunity for budget actions	Plaintiffs contend immunity does not apply to executive-like budget acts.	Budget proposal and related actions are legislative in nature; immunity applies.	Legislative immunity attaches to Leggett's budget proposal and Bowers' legislative-type testimony.
Whether County can be liable for abusive discharge	Plaintiffs claim county employment status; wrongful discharge.	Administrators were employees of independent LFRDs, not the County.	No abusive discharge claim; County not employer.
Whether MCPR Section 30 RIF requirements are applicable to Plaintiffs	Plaintiffs seek compliance with RIF procedures.	LFRDs—not County—must comply; County not employer.	RIF compliance claims dismissed; LFRDs must implement RIF.
Whether mandamus and related relief lie against County for MCPR actions	Plaintiffs seek writ of mandamus to compel compliance.	Same as above; county not liable for RIF process.	Counts I and V dismissed; no relief against County.

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1968) (face-value constitutional statute not voided for illicit motive)
D.G. Restaurant Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 953 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1991) (legislative motive rarely controls validity of facially constitutional ordinance)
City of Hobart v. Hobart Police Officers Ass'n, 864 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1988) (special context: ordinary budgeting not invalidated by motive evidence; legislative immunity scope)
Rateree v. Rockett, 852 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1988) (budget decisions with employment effects generally not administrative acts)
Berkley v. Common Council of Charleston, 63 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 1995) (local government not absolutely immune from §1983; motive not dispositive here)
Burtnick v. McLean, 76 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 1996) (limits on exploring legislative motives in §1983 challenges)
Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) (legislative immunity; speaking before legislative body protected)
Newell v. Runnels, 407 Md. 578 (2009) (MD FLSA context; limited relevance for abusive discharge here)