Supermarkets General Corp. v. State, Nos. 63

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: ORTH
• Citation: 409 A.2d 250,286 Md. 611
• Decision Date: 24 December 1979
• Docket Number: 72,Nos. 63
• Parties: SUPERMARKETS GENERAL CORPORATION t/a Hochschild Kohn Department Store et al. v. STATE of Maryland. TOYS "R" US, INC., STORE 511 v. STATE of Maryland.

Page 611

286 Md. 611 409 A.2d 250 SUPERMARKETS GENERAL CORPORATION t/a Hochschild Kohn
Department Store et al.
v.
STATE of Maryland.
TOYS "R" US, INC., STORE 511
v.
STATE of Maryland. Nos. 63, 72. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Dec. 24, 1979.

[409 A.2d 251]

Page 613

J. Michael McWilliams, Baltimore (J. Hardin Marion, III, Ruth Newman Fahrmeier and Tydings & Rosenberg, Baltimore, on brief), for Toys "R" Us, Inc., Store 511.

Lawrence S. Greenwald, Baltimore (Harold H. Burns, Jr. and Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, Baltimore, on brief), for Supermarkets General Corp. t/a Hochschild Kohn Dept. Store.

James P. Gillece, Jr., Baltimore, for Scott's Corp.

Neil J. Dilloff, Baltimore (Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, on brief), for Stewart & Co.

Franklin Goldstein and Melnicove, Kaufman & Weiner, P. A., Baltimore, on brief, for amicus curiae May Department Stores Company t/a Hecht Company and Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.

William H. Kenety, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore on brief), for appellee.

Argued before SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH, COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ.

ORTH, Judge.

We hold that § 534 L and § 534 N of Article 27, Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.) are constitutionally valid. The sections are two of the criminal statutes collected under the subtitle "Sabbath Breaking," composed of §§ 492-534 V, which are commonly known as Sunday Blue Laws or Sunday Closing Laws.

Section 534 L concerns Sunday activities in Baltimore County. Subject to exceptions [409 A.2d 252] specifically designated, subsection (a) prescribes that "it is unlawful on Sunday for any wholesale or retail establishment to conduct business for labor or profit in the usual manner and location or to operate its establishment in any manner for the general public. It

Page 614

shall not cause, direct, or authorize any employee or agent to engage in or conduct business on its behalf on Sunday." Subsection (b) excepts (1) drug stores whose principal business is the sale of drugs and related items, (2) delicatessens, (3) bakeries, (4) gasoline stations, and (5) restaurants. Subsection (c) provides that nothing in the section shall apply to (1) farmers, (2) nurserymen, and (3) "Any business with not more than six (6) persons on any one shift on Sunday." Subsection (d) makes the section inapplicable "to any person who by reason of his religious conviction observes a day other than Sunday as his day of rest and actually refrains from labor or secular business on that day." The term "a day other than Sunday" is defined as "any consecutive twenty-four hour period." Any establishment which offers service as its primary business, subsection (e), and industries "where continuous processing or manufacturing is required by the very nature of the process involved," subsection (f), are allowed to operate on Sunday, and subsection (g) permits all recreational activities, sports, and amusements on Sunday. Subsection (h) expressly disclaims that the section amends any other provision of law with reference to prohibition of Sunday activities and specifically declares that the section shall not be construed so as to permit new or used car dealer to dispose of any motor vehicle. Subsection (i) authorizes the State's Attorney of Baltimore County to petition the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to enjoin any violation. Subsection (j) makes any violation a misdemeanor and establishes fines as punishment upon conviction, except that no employee or agent who has been caused or directed by his employer to violate the provisions of the section may be fined.

Section 534 N concerns Sunday activities in Anne Arundel and Calvert counties. It tracks § 534 L with these differences: dealers in boats and boating equipment, and fishing equipment and supplies are added to the exempted businesses, subsection (b) 6; nothing in the section applies to any business with not more than eight persons on any one shift on a Sunday, subsection (c) 3; and the fines authorized upon conviction are different, subsection (j).

Page 615

I

We are called upon to determine the constitutional validity of the two statutes by reason of the convictions of four retail sales establishments for committing misdemeanors proscribed by them. ¹ Scott's Corporation and Stewart and Company were charged with violating § 534 L by operating a business on Sunday in Baltimore County with more than six persons on a shift. Supermarkets General Corporation, trading as Hochschild Kohn Department Store, and Toys "R" Us, Inc., Store 511, were charged with violating § 534 N by operating a business in Anne Arundel County with more than eight persons on a shift. At separate trials in the District Court of Maryland, Scott's and Stewart were found guilty and fined. Each noted an appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The cases were consolidated and tried De novo. The defendants were again convicted and fined. We granted their petitions for certiorari. At separate trials in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Hochschild Kohn and Toys were found guilty and fined. Each noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. We granted certiorari before decision by that court and consolidated all four cases. At each trial the contention [409 A.2d 253] that the statutes were unconstitutional was duly raised and rejected by the court.

With respect to the constitutional issues, each of the appellants challenges the statute under which it was convicted on the grounds that it violates equal protection of the law and due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and under Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Maryland. Toys also contends that the Sunday Blue Laws are laws respecting an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the federal constitution and Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Scott's and Stewart

Page 616

further claim that § 534 L creates a monopoly in contravention of Article 41 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. II

It is patent that the enactment of Sunday Closing Laws is an exercise of the State's police power.

Throughout this century and longer, both the federal and state governments have oriented their activities very largely toward improvement of the health, safety, recreation and general well-being of our citizens. Numerous laws affecting public health, safety factors in industry, laws affecting hours and conditions of labor of women and children, week-end diversion at parks and beaches, and cultural activities of various kinds, now point the way toward the good life for all. Sunday Closing Laws, like those (of Maryland) have become part and parcel of this great governmental concern wholly apart from their original purposes or connotations. (McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 444-445, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1115, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961).) ²

The basic rule is that there is a presumption of the constitutional validity of statutes. We put it thus in Edgewood Nursing Home v. Maxwell, 282 Md. 422, 384 A.2d 748 (1978):

A statute enacted under the police power carries with it a strong presumption of constitutionality and the party attacking it has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity; a reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality is sufficient to sustain it. . . . In other words, the legislature is presumed to have acted within

Page 617

constitutional limits so that if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain the constitutionality of the statute, the existence of that state of facts as a basis for the passage of the law must be assumed. (Id. at 427, 384 A.2d at 751.)

Accord: Condominium Owners v. Supervisor, 283 Md. 29, 388 A.2d 116 (1978); Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 69-70, 344 A.2d 422 (1975), Quoting Salsburg v. Maryland, 346 U.S. 545, 553 n. 9, 74 S.Ct. 280, 98 L.Ed. 281 (1954).

At the hub of appellants' equal protection and due process contentions is that the exceptions of the various commodities, businesses and persons from the Sunday prohibitions are without rational and substantial relation to the object of the legislation and, therefore, are arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable. The standards under which this proposition is to be evaluated with respect to equal protection have been often set forth, although no precise formula has been developed. It is 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 result in some inequality. [409 A.2d 254] A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it. (McGowan, 366 U.S. at 425-426, 81 S.Ct. at 1105.)

This statement is in practical effect an iteration of the rational basis test used in equal protection analysis and the Supreme Court's application of it to Sunday closing laws serves as clear indication that such laws do not involve a fundamental right nor do they operate to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class. See Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593, 600-603, 380 A.2d

Page 618

1052 (1977), Cert. denied, Maryland v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 997, 98 S.Ct. 1650, 56 L.Ed.2d 86 (1978).

The test for constitutionality under the due process clause is

whether a statute, as an exercise of the state's police power, bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, morals, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this state. . . . The exercise by the Legislature of the police power will not be interfered with unless it is shown to be exercised arbitrarily, oppressively or unreasonably. (Bowie Inn v. City of Bowie, 274 Md....