Gowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc Two Guys From v. Ginley Braunfeld v. Brown, HARRISON-ALLENTOW

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWARREN
Citation81 S.Ct. 1218,366 U.S. 420,6 L.Ed.2d 393
PartiesMargaret McGOWAN et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF MARYLAND. GALLAGHER, Chief of Police of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, et al., Appellants. v. CROWN KOSHER SUPER MARKET OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., et al. TWO GUYS FROM, Appellant, v. Paul A. McGINLEY, District Attorney, County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania et al. Abraham BRAUNFELD et al., Appellants, v. Albert N. BROWN, Commissioner of Police of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al
Decision Date29 May 1961
Docket NumberINC,36,Nos. 8,67,11,HARRISON-ALLENTOW

366 U.S. 420
81 S.Ct. 1218
6 L.Ed.2d 393
Margaret McGOWAN et al., Appellants,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND. GALLAGHER, Chief of Police of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, et al., Appellants. v. CROWN KOSHER SUPER MARKET OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., et al. TWO GUYS FROM HARRISON-ALLENTOWN, INC., Appellant, v. Paul A. McGINLEY, District Attorney, County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania et al. Abraham BRAUNFELD et al., Appellants, v. Albert N. BROWN, Commissioner of Police of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.

Nos. 8, 11, 36, 67.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 1961

[Syllabus from pages 420-421 intentionally omitted]

Page 422

Mr. Harry Silbert, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.

Mr. John Martin Jones, Jr., Baltimore Md., for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issues in this case concern the constitutional validity of Maryland criminal statutes,1 commonly known as Sunday Closing Laws or Sunday Blue Laws. These statutes, with exceptions to be noted hereafter, generally proscribe all labor, business and other commercial activities on Sunday. The questions presented are whether the classifications within the statutes bring about a denial of equal protection of the law, whether the laws are so vague as to fail to give reasonable notice of the forbidden conduct and therefore violate due process, and whether the statutes are laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Appellants are seven employees of a large discount department store located on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. They were indicted for the Sunday sale of a three-ring loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler and staples, and a toy submarine in violation of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, § 521. Generally, this section prohibited, throughout the State, the Sunday sale of all merchandise except the retail sale of tobacco products, confectioneries, milk, bread, fruits, gasoline, oils, greases,

Page 423

drugs and medicines, and newspapers and periodicals. Recently amended, this section also now excepts from the general prohibition the retail sale in Anne Arundel County of all foodstuffs, automobile and boating accessories, flowers, toilet goods, hospital supplies and souvenirs. It now further provides that any retail establishment in Anne Arundel County which does not employ more than one person other than the owner may operate on Sunday.

Although appellants were indicted only under § 521, in order properly to consider several of the broad constitutional contentions, we must examine the whole body of Maryland Sunday laws. Several sections of the Maryland statutes are particularly relevant to evaluation of the issues presented. Section 492 of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, forbids all persons from doing any work or bodily labor on Sunday and forbids permitting children or servants to work on that day or to engage in fishing, hunting and unlawful pastimes or recreations. The section excepts all works of necessity and charity. Section 522 of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, disallows the opening or use of any dancing saloon, opera house, bowling alley or barber shop on Sunday. However, in addition to the exceptions noted above, Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, § 509, exempts, for Anne Arundel County, the Sunday operation of any bathing beach, bathhouse, dancing saloon and amusement park, and activities incident thereto and retail sales of merchandise customarily sold at, or incidental to, the operation of the aforesaid occupations and businesses. Section 90 of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 2B, makes generally unlawful the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday. However, this section, and immediately succeeding ones, provide various immunities for the Sunday sale of different kinds of alcoholic beverages, at different hours during the day, by vendors holding different types of licenses, in different political divisions of the State—particularly

Page 424

in Anne Arundel County. See Md.Ann.Code, Art. 2B, § 28(a).

The remaining statutory sections concern a myriad of exceptions for various counties, districts of counties, cities and towns throughout the State. Among the activities allowed in certain areas on Sunday are such sports as football, baseball, golf, tennis, bowling, croquet, basketball, lacrosse, soccer, hockey, swimming, softball, boating, fishing, skating, horseback riding, stock car racing and pool or billiards. Other immunized activities permitted in some regions of the State include group singing or playing of musical instruments; the exhibition of motion pictures; dancing; the operation of recreation centers, picnic grounds, swimming pools, skating rinks and miniature golf courses. The taking of oysters and the hunting or killing of game is generally forbidden, but shooting conducted by organized rod and gun clubs is permitted in one county. In some of the subdivisions within the State, the exempted Sunday activities are sanctioned throughout the day; in others, they may not commence until early afternoon or evening; in many, the activities may only be conducted during the afternoon and late in the evening. Certain localities do not permit the allowed Sunday activity to be carried on within one hundred yards of any church where religious services are being held. Local ordinances and regulations concerning certain limited activities supplement the State's statutory scheme. In Anne Arundel County, for example, slot machines, pinball machines and bingo may be played on Sunday.

Among other things, appellants contended at the trial that the Maryland statutes under which they were charged were contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment for the reasons stated at the outset of this opinion. Appellants were convicted and each was fined five dollars and costs. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, 220

Page 425

Md. 117, 151 A.2d 156; on appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(2), we noted probable jurisdiction. 362 U.S. 959, 80 S.Ct. 874, 4 L.Ed.2d 874.

I.

Appellants argue that the Maryland statutes violate the 'Equal Protection' Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on several counts. First, they contend that the classifications contained in the statutes concerning which commodities may or may not be sold on Sunday are without rational and substantial relation to the object of the legislation.2 Specifically, appellants allege that the statutory exemptions for the Sunday sale of the merchandise mentioned above render arbitrary the statute under which they were convicted. Appellants further allege that § 521 is capricious because of the exemptions for the operation of the various amusements that have been listed and because slot machines, pin-ball machines, and bingo are legalized and are freely played on Sunday.

The standards under which this proposition is to be evaluated have been set forth many times by this Court. Although no precise formula has been developed, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws

Page 426

result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it. See Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Com'rs, 330 U.S. 552, 67 S.Ct. 910, 91 L.Ed. 1093; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York v. Brownell, 294 U.S. 580, 55 S.Ct. 538, 79 L.Ed. 1070; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369; Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96, 19 S.Ct. 609, 43 L.Ed. 909.3

It would seem that a legislature could reasonably find that the Sunday sale of the exempted commodities was necessary either for the health of the populace or for the enhancement of the recreational atmosphere of the day—that a family which takes a Sunday ride into the country will need gasoline for the automobile and may find pleasant a soft drink or fresh fruit; that those who go to the beach may wish ice cream or some other item normally sold there; that some people will prefer alcoholic beverages or games of chance to add to their relaxation; that newspapers and drug products should always be available to the public.

The record is barren of any indication that this apparently reasonable basis does not exist, that the statutory distinctions are invidious, that local tradition and custom might not rationally call for this legislative treatment. See Salsburg v. State of Maryland, 346 U.S. 545, 552—553, 74 S.Ct. 280, 284, 98 L.Ed. 281; Kotch

Page 427

v. Board of River Port Pilot Com'rs, supra. Likewise, the fact that these exemptions exist and deny some vendors and operators the day of rest and recreation contemplated by the legislature does not render the statutes violative of equal protection since there would appear to be many valid reasons for these exemptions, as stated above, and no evidence to dispel them.

Secondly, appellants contend that the statutory arrangement which permits only certain Anne Arundel County retailers to sell merchandise essential to, or cutomarily sold at, or incidental to, the operation of bathing beaches, amusement parks et cetera is contrary to the 'Equal Protection' Clause because it discriminates unreasonably against retailers in other Maryland counties. But we have held that the Equal Protection Clause relates to equality between persons as such, rather than between areas and that territorial uniformity is not a constitutional prerequisite. With particular reference to the State of Maryland, we have noted that the prescription of different substantive offenses in different counties is generally a matter for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2677 practice notes
  • Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court, No. 7954.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • July 31, 1972
    ...be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.' McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 426 , 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393." 24. We adopt Judge Thomas' conclusion that the express preemption of § 1673(a) and (c) applies directly to garnishments of the disposable e......
  • Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Civ. A. No. C 71-251
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • February 22, 1973
    ...will not be 355 F. Supp. 1249 set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.' McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d The argument which assumes that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection is not violated merely because a statute......
  • Mancuso v. Taft, No. 72-1180.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 20, 1973
    ...351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956); Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 77 S.Ct. 1344, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485 (1957); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620 (1966); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. ......
  • Lipscomb By and Through DeFehr v. Simmons, No. 87-4079
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 27, 1992
    ...L.Ed.2d 659 (1981); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976) (per curiam); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 1. Conceivable basis test We believe there are valid state interests which could motivate Oregon t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2673 cases
  • Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court, No. 7954.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • July 31, 1972
    ...be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.' McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 426 , 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393." 24. We adopt Judge Thomas' conclusion that the express preemption of § 1673(a) and (c) applies directly to garnishments of the disposable e......
  • Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Civ. A. No. C 71-251
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • February 22, 1973
    ...will not be 355 F. Supp. 1249 set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.' McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d The argument which assumes that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection is not violated merely because a statute......
  • Mancuso v. Taft, No. 72-1180.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 20, 1973
    ...351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956); Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 77 S.Ct. 1344, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485 (1957); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620 (1966); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. ......
  • Lipscomb By and Through DeFehr v. Simmons, No. 87-4079
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 27, 1992
    ...L.Ed.2d 659 (1981); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976) (per curiam); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 1. Conceivable basis test We believe there are valid state interests which could motivate Oregon t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • ESTABLISHMENT'S POLITICAL PRIORITY TO FREE EXERCISE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...U.S. 398, 421 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). (116) Id. (citing Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961)); see also McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420(1961). (117) See McGowan, 366 U.S. at (118) See SOHRAB AHMARI, THE UNBROKEN THREAD: DISCOVERING THE WISDOM OF TRADITION IN AN AGE OF CHAOS 67......
  • Leadership on the Supreme Court of the United States: Chief Justice Burger and the Establishment Clause
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 42-4, December 1989
    • December 1, 1989
    ...A Study of Leadership." WesternPolitical Quarterly 30: 484-92.McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).McGowen v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).MacKenzie, John P. 1986. "Rehnquist’s Inheritance." New York Times BookReview Section, 27 July, p. 14.McLauchlan, William P. 1972. "Rese......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT