McGowan v. Maryland

366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2008, 17 Ohio Op. 2d 151
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 29, 1961
Docket8
StatusPublished
Cited by3,428 cases

This text of 366 U.S. 420 (McGowan v. Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2008, 17 Ohio Op. 2d 151 (1961).

Opinions

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, [423]*423drugs 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 [424]*424in 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 [425]*425Md. 117, 151 A. 2d 156; on appeal brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), we noted probable jurisdiction. 362 U. S. 959.

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 [426]*426result 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 Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U. S. 580; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Cas Co., 220 U. S. 61; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96.3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Alvarado
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2016
MacKie v. State
936 A.2d 588 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2007)
Van Deelen v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
411 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (W.D. Missouri, 2006)
Nader v. Connor
332 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Texas, 2004)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2002
Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
929 F. Supp. 10 (District of Columbia, 1996)
Mincone v. Nassau County Community College
923 F. Supp. 398 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Earth Island Institute v. Christopher
890 F. Supp. 1085 (Court of International Trade, 1995)
Adamson Companies v. City of Malibu
854 F. Supp. 1476 (C.D. California, 1994)
Lewis v. Tuscan Dairy Farms, Inc.
829 F. Supp. 665 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Miyazawa v. City of Cincinnati
825 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ohio, 1993)
Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1990
Hearn v. City of Overland Park
772 P.2d 758 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1989)
Duckworth v. City of Kansas City
758 P.2d 201 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1988)
Ishee v. Moss
668 F. Supp. 554 (N.D. Mississippi, 1987)
Snead v. City of Albuquerque
663 F. Supp. 1084 (D. New Mexico, 1987)
Burriss v. Northern Assurance Co. of America
691 P.2d 10 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1984)
United States v. City of Yonkers
592 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Trembley v. City of Central Falls
480 A.2d 1359 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1984)
State v. Smith
681 P.2d 1374 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2008, 17 Ohio Op. 2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-maryland-scotus-1961.