209 A.3d 184
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- Baltimore City ordinance (Art. 15, § 17-33) bars mobile vendors from parking within 300 feet of a brick-and-mortar business "primarily engaged in" selling the "same type of food." Violations are misdemeanors with fines and license suspension/revocation, but enforcement has typically involved relocation requests after complaints rather than criminal prosecution.
- Pizza di Joey and Madame BBQ (licensed food trucks) sued the City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the 300-foot rule violates Article 24 (due process and equal protection) of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; neither truck had ever been cited under the rule.
- Trial evidence included testimony from the food-truck owners about their business harms and a City expert who described a legitimate city interest in protecting brick-and-mortar investment and preventing "free-riding."
- The circuit court applied a so-called "heightened rational basis" standard, upheld the ordinance under that review, but found the statute unconstitutionally vague (both facially and as-applied) and enjoined enforcement.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the challenge justiciable, concluded traditional rational-basis review under Article 24 was the appropriate standard, found the ordinance rationally related to legitimate municipal interests, and reversed the vagueness-based injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability / ripeness: may plaintiffs seek declaratory relief though never prosecuted | Food trucks: ordinance restricts their licensed business operations; declaratory relief appropriate without waiting for prosecution | City: no citations or credible threat of prosecution; case abstract and unripe | Held: Justiciable — challengers suffer concrete business limitations and ripeness supports declaratory relief under the Act |
| Appropriate Article 24 standard of review | Food trucks: invoke a "real-and-substantial" (more probing) test akin to heightened rational basis | City: deferential rational-basis, as ordinance is economic regulation | Held: Apply Article 24 rational-basis; the old Lochner-era "real-and-substantial" substantive-due-process standard is defunct; only when important non-fundamental rights are implicated is a closer Article 24 inquiry required |
| Constitutionality under Article 24 (equal protection / due process) | Food trucks: 300-foot rule arbitrarily and discriminatorily restricts their ability to practice their trade; may be functionally prohibitive in key neighborhoods | City: ordinance addresses legitimate municipal interest (protecting brick-and-mortar investments from free-riding) and is rationally related to that interest | Held: Ordinance is a permissible economic regulation and survives rational-basis review — it rationally furthers the City’s legitimate interest |
| Vagueness (facial / as-applied) | Food trucks: statutory phrases ("primarily engaged in," "same type of food," and how to measure 300 feet) are ambiguous, leading to arbitrary enforcement | City: plaintiffs did not plead a vagueness claim and there is no enforcement record to evaluate as-applied vagueness; facial vagueness available only when a fundamental right is implicated | Held: Circuit court erred — plaintiffs disclaimed a vagueness claim and, in any event, no as-applied vagueness record existed; facial vagueness not available absent a fundamental-right context |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Gen. v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683 (1981) (applied a more searching Article 24 review where important personal rights to pursue a vocation were substantially affected)
- Verzi v. Baltimore County, 333 Md. 411 (1994) (Article 24 scrutiny invalidated a geographic preference that conferred monopoly-like advantage and lacked rational relation to regulatory purpose)
- State v. G. & C. Gulf, Inc., 442 Md. 716 (2015) (ripeness and credible threat of prosecution principles for declaratory challenges to penal statutes)
- Governor of Md. v. Exxon, 279 Md. 410 (1977) (returned Article 24 economic regulation review to deferential standard aligned with federal rational-basis)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (illustrates federal rational-basis deferential standard for economic regulation)
- Baddock v. Baltimore County, 239 Md. App. 467 (2018) (describes Article 24 inquiry as asking whether an enactment bears a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, and welfare)