Kim v. Bd. of Liquor License Commissioners for Balt. City

• Citation: 255 Md.App. 35,278 A.3d 184
• Decision Date: 29 June 2022
• Docket Number: 137, 140, 885 and 886, Sept. Term, 2021
• Parties: Myong Nam KIM, et al. v. BOARD OF LIQUOR LICENSE COMMISSIONERS FOR BALTIMORE CITY Miae Han, et al. v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City In the Matter of the Petition of Myong Nam Kim, Yong Doo Park, and Myongnam, Inc. In the Matter of the Petition of Myong O. Friley, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

255 Md.App. 35

278 A.3d 184

Myong Nam KIM, et al.

v.BOARD OF LIQUOR LICENSE COMMISSIONERS FOR BALTIMORE CITY

Miae Han, et al.

v.Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City

In the Matter of the Petition of Myong Nam Kim, Yong Doo Park, and Myongnam, Inc.

In the Matter of the Petition of Myong O. Friley, et al.

No. 137, 140, 885 and 886, Sept. Term, 2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 29, 2022

Argued by: Peter A. Prevas (Prevas and Prevas, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant in Nos. 137, 140, Sept. Term, 2021

Argued by: Murray Singerman (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Annapolis, MD, for Appellee in Nos. 137, 140, Sept. Term, 2021

Argued by: Murray Singerman (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Annapolis, MD, for Appellant in Nos. 885, 886, Sept. Term, 2021

Argued by: Peter A. Prevas (Prevas and Prevas, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee in Nos. 885, 886, Sept. Term, 2021

Panel: Kehoe, Beachley, Shaw, JJ.

Beachley, J.

In July of 2020, the Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City (the "Board") cited three separate liquor establishments (the "Licensees") for violating a newly enacted law which limited the hours of operation for certain liquor licenses in a boundary within the 45th legislative district.¹ One of the Licensees was cited twice, resulting in four total violations. The Licensees unsuccessfully challenged their citations before the Board by arguing that the new law was unconstitutional in two ways: the law violated the Maryland State Constitution's "one subject" requirement, and that the law violated equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland State Constitution. The Board rejected the Licensees’ argument regarding the one subject requirement, and "decline[d] to rule" on the equal protection argument because the Licensees "failed to provide satisfactory record evidence" to support their claims. Subsequently, the Licensees filed petitions for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The four petitions for judicial review went before two different Baltimore City Circuit Court Judges that resulted in different outcomes—one judge affirmed the Board's decision in two cases while the other judge reversed.

The judge who affirmed the Board determined that the new law did not violate the one subject requirement, and that the Licensees failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their equal protection claims. The judge who reversed the Board, however, determined that the Board erred in its equal protection analysis. The Licensees timely appealed from the judge who affirmed, and the Board timely appealed from the judge who reversed. While the cases were pending, this Court issued an Order consolidating all four appeals, noting that "[t]he petitioners in all four cases were represented by the same counsel and presented virtually the same legal arguments." Accordingly, the issues we must now decide in these consolidated appeals are:

1. Whether the newly enacted law violates the "one subject" clause of Article III, § 29 of the Maryland Constitution.

2. Whether the Board correctly rejected the Licensees’ equal protection claim due to insufficient evidence.

As we shall explain, we conclude that the law does not violate the one subject clause. Additionally, we hold that the Licensees presented insufficient evidence to proceed with their equal protection claim. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's decision in all four cases.²

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Because of the somewhat cumbersome nature of the underlying facts and proceedings, we shall proceed as follows. First, we explain the procedural history of Chapter 389 of the Maryland Laws of 2020—the law which went into effect on July 1, 2020. The Licensees concede that they violated this law, but argue that it is unconstitutional. Second, we explain the underlying facts and the procedural history that brought about the consolidated appeals.

According to its website, the Board is authorized by law to issue several different types of liquor licenses within Baltimore City. Liquor License Board, License Types https://llb.baltimorecity.gov/license-types (last accessed June 1, 2022). In this case, we are concerned with Class B-D-7 beer, wine, and liquor licenses. The Board issues Class B-D-7 liquor licenses to "taverns," and, subject to other restrictions, these establishments may generally operate seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Id. All the Licensees in this case possess Class B-D-7 beer, wine, and liquor licenses.

On January 22, 2020, Senator Cory McCray, who represents Maryland's 45th legislative district, sponsored and introduced SB 571. We refer to the Fiscal and Policy Note for SB 571, which accurately noted that the bill would

alter[ ] the hours of sale for a Class B-D-7 beer, wine, and liquor license located in an area of Baltimore City bounded on the north by North Avenue, on the west by Central Avenue and Harford Avenue, on the south by Monument Street as it runs from North Central Avenue to North Wolfe Street and McElderry Street as it runs from North Wolfe Street to Luzerne Avenue, and on the east by Luzerne Avenue as it runs from Monument Street to Federal Street, then by Rose Street as it runs from Federal Street to North Avenue. The hours of sale for a license holder in this area are from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. and may not be extended if they begin later than 9 a.m. or end after 10 p.m. The bill takes effect July 1, 2020.^{[3 ]}

The purported goal of the bill was to reduce crime in the area. See Cory V. McCray, Vote Yes on Senate Bill SB: 571 (Feb. 28, 2020) (stating that a reduction in operating hours for certain liquor establishments will result in a reduction in violent crime). The Baltimore City Senate Delegation "voted unanimously in favor of" the bill. The Senate, with minor amendments, voted to approve the bill, and on March 15, 2020, the Senate referred the bill to the House. Following a first reading, the bill was forwarded to the House Economic Matters Committee. Apparently, however, the Economic Matters Committee declined to hold a hearing on the bill, and the bill died.

While SB 571 was working its way through the Senate, on February 5, 2020, Delegates Stephanie Smith, Talmadge Branch, and Tony Bridges introduced HB 954, a bill which would also impact liquor sales in the 45th legislative district. HB 954, as originally written, applied to an area "bounded by the unit block of West Preston Street, the 1200 block of North Charles Street, the 1200 block of Morton Street, and the unit block of West Biddle Street[.]" In that bounded region, which we note is completely separate from the boundary described in SB 571, HB 954 would

authoriz[e] a Class B beer, wine, and liquor license holder in a certain legislative district to exchange the license for a Class B-D-7 beer, wine, and liquor license if the licensed premises is in an area bounded by certain streets and an applicant executes a memorandum of understanding with a certain community association; providing that a certain license holder is authorized to provide outdoor table service, authorizing the [Board] to make issuance or renewal of a certain license conditional on the substantial compliance of applicants entered into a certain memorandum of understanding; and generally relating to alcoholic beverages in Baltimore City.

2020 Sess., House Bill 954, First Reading (available at https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2020RS/bills/hb/hb0954f.pdf). Simply put, HB 954 as initially written would apply to a completely separate boundary within the 45th legislative district than SB 571, and would allow Class B liquor license holders to exchange their licenses for Class B-D-7 licenses, provided that the license holders executed a memorandum of understanding with a local community association.

HB 954 passed unanimously in the House, and on March 15, 2020, following a first reading in the Senate, the bill was sent to the Senate's Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. That Committee voted to report the bill as "favorable." While on the Senate floor, Senator McCray moved to amend the bill by adding to HB 954 the language from his previously sponsored SB 571 regarding the restriction of hours for liquor licenses contained within a separate defined boundary of the 45th legislative district. After the Senate approved the bill with Senator McCray's amendment, the House unanimously accepted the Senate amendment, resulting in the bill's passage. The new law was enacted on May 8, 2020, as Chapter 389 of the 2020 regular legislative session.

As enacted, Chapter 389 amended the Alcoholic Beverages Article as follows. First, it modified Md. Code (2016, 2020 Supp.), § 12-903 of the Alcoholic Beverages Article ("AB") by adding the following language:

(F) In the 45th legislative district, a Class B beer, wine, and liquor license may be exchanged for a Class B-D-7 beer, wine, and liquor license if:

(1) the licensed premises is in an area bounded by the unit block of West Preston Street, the 1200 block of North Charles Street, the 1200 block of Morton Street, and the unit block of West Biddle Street; and

(2) the applicant executes a memorandum of understanding with the Mount Vernon-Belvedere Improvement Association.

Chapter 389 also modified AB § 12-905, a statute concerning Class B-D-7 liquor licenses, by adding the following language:

The hours of sale are from 9 A.M. to 10 P.M. for a license holder in an area bounded on the north by North Avenue, on the west by Central Avenue and Harford Avenue, on the south by Monument Street as it runs from North Central Avenue to North Wolfe Street and McElderry Street as it runs from North Wolfe Street to Luzerne Avenue, and on the east by Luzerne Avenue as it runs from Monument Street to Federal Street, then by Rose Street as it runs from Federal Street to North Avenue.

We note that several sections of the Alcoholic Beverages Arti...