Title: Comptroller v. Comcast

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County 
Case No. C-02-CV-21-000509 
 
 
 
    IN THE SUPREME COURT 
Argued:  May 5, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OF MARYLAND* 
 
No. 32 
 
September Term, 2022 
 
            ______________________________________ 
 
 
COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA, MARYLAND, 
PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, WEST 
VIRGINIA, LLC, ET AL. 
 
 ______________________________________   
  
 
Fader, C.J., 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Gould, 
Eaves, 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
PER CURIAM ORDER 
______________________________________ 
 
 
 
Filed: May 9, 2023 
 
 
* At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional 
amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court 
of Maryland.  The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials 
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this 
document is authentic. 
 
Gregory Hilton, Clerk 
2023-05-09 12:15-04:00
 
COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND 
 
v.  
 
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA, 
MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, 
VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, 
ET AL. 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
     IN THE 
 
     SUPREME COURT   
 
     OF MARYLAND 
 
     No. 32 
      
     September Term, 2022  
 
PER CURIAM ORDER 
Upon consideration of the filings by the Comptroller of Maryland, the appellant, 
Comcast of California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, LLC, et al., the 
appellees, and amici curiae supporting both parties, and oral argument conducted on May 
5, 2023,  
Whereas, on September 10, 2021, the appellees filed an amended complaint in the 
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County seeking a declaratory judgment that Maryland’s 
Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax, Title 7.5 of the Tax-General Article, is 
unconstitutional; and 
Whereas, on October 12, 2021, the Comptroller moved to dismiss the amended 
complaint.  The Comptroller argued, among other things, that the circuit court lacked 
jurisdiction over the action because the appellees had failed to exhaust their administrative 
remedies.  On March 14, 2022, following a hearing, the circuit court denied that aspect of 
the Comptroller’s motion to dismiss and permitted all but one count of the amended 
complaint to proceed; and 
2 
 
Whereas, on April 5, 2022, the Comptroller and the appellees each filed motions for 
summary judgment.  The Comptroller again argued, among other things, that the circuit 
court lacked jurisdiction over the action because the appellees had failed to exhaust 
administrative remedies.  The appellees argued that the Maryland Digital Advertising 
Gross Revenues Tax violates the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration 
of Rights, and sought a declaration to that effect; and  
Whereas, in an order entered on October 21, 2022, after a hearing, the circuit court 
granted the appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to counts one, six, and eight of the 
amended complaint, and denied the Comptroller’s motion for summary judgment.   In a 
final declaratory judgment order entered on November 18, 2022, the circuit court declared 
that the “Maryland Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax violates the Supremacy Clause 
of the United States Constitution and the Internet Tax Freedom Act (Count One), the 
dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (Count Six), and the First 
Amendment to the United States Constitution (Count Eight)”; and 
Whereas, the Comptroller noted an appeal from the circuit court’s judgment and 
thereafter sought review in this Court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari, which this 
Court granted; and 
Whereas, contemporaneous with the petition for writ of certiorari, the Comptroller 
filed a motion to stay enforcement of the circuit court’s declaratory judgment pending 
appeal.  In the motion, the Comptroller argued that a stay was needed to prevent 
interference with the tax assessment and collection process before the appellees had 
3 
 
exhausted their administrative remedies.  Upon consideration of the motion to stay and the 
response filed by the appellees, the Court denied the motion; and 
Whereas, on May 5, 2023, this Court held oral argument, 
Now, therefore, for reasons to be stated later in an opinion to be filed, this 9th day 
of May 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, HOLDS 
that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County lacked jurisdiction over this action because 
the appellees failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and it is therefore 
ORDERED, that the following orders of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County 
are hereby VACATED:  (1) the March 14, 2022 order denying in part the Comptroller’s 
motion to dismiss; (2) the October 21, 2022 order granting in part the appellees’ motion 
for summary judgment and denying the Comptroller’s motion for summary judgment; and 
(3) the November 18, 2022 final declaratory judgment; and it is further 
ORDERED, that this action is remanded to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel 
County with directions to dismiss the action; and it is further 
ORDERED, that costs are to be paid by the appellees and the mandate is to issue 
forthwith. 
 
 
     /s/ Matthew J. Fader 
    
   
 Chief Justice