Court Opinion

ID: 9383154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 19:05:49.465506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.998198
License: Public Domain

Jennifer Rowe v. Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, No. 17, September Term, 2022.
Opinion by Biran, J.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION – The Supreme Court of Maryland held that there is no
express statutory grant of review in the Appellate Court of Maryland of circuit court rulings
on judicial review of no-probable-cause findings by the Maryland Commission on Civil
Rights (the “Commission”). Section 20-1005(d)(2) of the State Government Article is
unambiguous. It expressly references section 10-222 of the State Government Article – the
Administrative Procedure Act provision regarding judicial review of agency decisions in
circuit courts – and nothing else. Thus, the plain language of the statute demonstrates that
the General Assembly intended to confine judicial review of Commission no-probable-
cause determinations to the circuit court.
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-20-003503
Argued: December 5, 2022
                                                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT

                                                                              OF MARYLAND*

                                                                                      No. 17

                                                                            September Term, 2022

                                                                              JENNIFER ROWE

                                                                                        v.

                                                                      MARYLAND COMMISSION ON
                                                                           CIVIL RIGHTS

                                                                        Fader, C.J.
                                                                        Watts
                                                                        Hotten
                                                                        Booth
                                                                        Biran
                                                                        Gould
                                                                        Eaves,

                                                                                      JJ.

                                                                               Opinion by Biran, J.
                                                                 Fader, C.J., and Watts and Booth, JJ., dissent.

                                                                             Filed: March 29, 2023

                                                                * At the November 8, 2022 general election, the
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials
                                                                voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this   amendment changing the name of the Court of
document is authentic.
                                                                Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of
                  2023-03-29 14:37-04:00
                                                                Maryland. The name change took effect on
                                                                December 14, 2022.

Gregory Hilton, Clerk
       In this case, we consider whether judicial review of a no-probable-cause

determination by the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (the “Commission”) begins

and ends at the circuit court, or whether the losing party in the circuit court may appeal the

adverse judgment to the Appellate Court of Maryland. That determination turns on whether

there is a statute that expressly authorizes appellate review of the circuit court’s ruling.

       Jennifer Rowe filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that her gym, Krav

Maga MD, LLC (“KMMD”), engaged in disability discrimination by deleting a comment

she had posted on KMMD’s Facebook account relating to her disability, and by

subsequently terminating her membership. After investigating, the Commission found no

probable cause to believe that KMMD had discriminated against Ms. Rowe based on her

disability. Ms. Rowe submitted a request for reconsideration of the Commission’s

determination, which the Commission denied.

       Ms. Rowe then sought review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, filing a

petition for judicial review of the Commission’s denial of her motion for reconsideration.

The circuit court affirmed the Commission’s no-probable-cause finding. Ms. Rowe then

noted an appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland (at the time, called the Court of Special

Appeals of Maryland).1 The Appellate Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Ms.

Rowe’s appeal of the circuit court’s ruling, concluding that no Maryland statute expressly

       1
         At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
grants the Appellate Court the authority to conduct such a review. For this reason, the

Appellate Court dismissed Ms. Rowe’s appeal. We affirm.

                                             I

                                      Background

   A. The Deletion of Ms. Rowe’s Facebook Comment and Termination of Her
      Membership at KMMD
       Ms. Rowe had been a member of KMMD, a mixed-martial arts training gym, for

approximately two years before the events at issue in this case took place. Ms. Rowe signed

a membership agreement when she joined the gym, which included a provision that

KMMD “reserves the right to revoke or deny the membership of any member or guest for

cause if member fails to keep and obey any of such rules and regulations, or for reasons of

nuisance, disturbance of other members, moral turpitude or fraud.” The provision further

stated: “In no event shall member’s behavior, demeanor, hygiene or attitude be in any way

offensive, threatening, unsanitary or in any manner contrary to the best interest of the

membership as a whole.”

       In February 2019, Ms. Rowe commented on a post in KMMD’s private Facebook

group. The original post asked why some people have negative attitudes despite having full

use of their extremities. Ms. Rowe – who suffers from anxiety, depression, and post-

traumatic stress disorder – responded: “[b]ecause some of us have mental/emotional

disabilities.” KMMD staff determined that Ms. Rowe’s comment violated the group’s

posting policies, and they deleted the comment. On a few occasions between February and

                                            2
June 2019, Ms. Rowe and KMMD staff communicated regarding the deletion of her

comment.

       On June 17, 2019, Ms. Rowe expressed concern about a comment one of KMMD’s

instructors made about left-handed gym members. She emailed several complaints to

KMMD staff about that issue between June 17 and 27, 2019. Then, on June 27, 2019, Ms.

Rowe emailed that she still felt “hurt and angry” about the deleted Facebook comment.

KMMD’s General Manager, Elisabeth Green, responded that, if Ms. Rowe remained

dissatisfied about the deletion, Ms. Rowe could cancel her membership. Ms. Green also

told Ms. Rowe that “our communication on this matter will cease and moving forward, be

entirely restricted to your ongoing weekly membership, classes, belt testing, and any

feedback or questions you have regarding the physical facility.”

       Ms. Rowe subsequently sent two more emails to Ms. Green and the Chief Executive

Officer of KMMD, Jeff Mount, on June 27, and she also called the gym twice. In her second

email, Ms. Rowe told Mr. Mount and Ms. Green that “[a]t this point it seems impossible

to resolve this dispute via email.” She stated, “I am willing to meet in person,” but “[i]f

you are not able or willing to do that, then I will contact Krav Maga Worldwide. If they

cannot help, then I will have no choice but to initiate an inquiry with the Maryland

Commission on Civil Rights.”

       Later in the afternoon on June 27, Mr. Mount sent Ms. Rowe an email terminating

her membership and banning her from the premises because, according to KMMD, she had

violated her membership agreement by engaging in “disruptive, slanderous, [and]

harassing” behavior.

                                            3
   B. Statutory Framework
       Title 20 of the Maryland Code’s State Government Article prohibits discriminatory

acts in places of public accommodation. Md. Code, State Government Article (“SG”)

§§ 20-101(d)(1), 20-304 (2021 Repl. Vol.). That means an owner or operator of a place of

public accommodation “may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the

accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation

because of the person’s race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sexual

orientation, gender identity, or disability.” Id. § 20-304.

       Under Subtitle 10 (“Enforcement”), a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged

discriminatory act may file a complaint with the Commission. Id. § 20-1004(a). The

Commission then investigates the complaint, and the Commission’s staff issues written

findings. Id. §§ 20-1005(a)(1), (a)(3). What happens next depends on whether or not the

Commission finds probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act has been or is being

committed.

       1. Procedures Following a Finding of Probable Cause
       If – unlike in Ms. Rowe’s case – the Commission finds probable cause to believe

that a discriminatory act has been or is being committed, the Commission’s staff

“immediately shall endeavor to eliminate the discrimination by conference, conciliation,

or persuasion.” Id. § 20-1005(b). If an agreement cannot be reached, the Commission’s

staff must make a written finding to that effect and provide copies of the written finding to

the complainant and the respondent. Id. § 20-1005(c)(2). On the making of a finding under

§ 20-1005(c)(2) that an agreement cannot be reached, the complaint is certified to the

                                               4
general counsel of the Commission, and written notice is issued and served in the name of

the Commission, together with a copy of the complaint, requiring the respondent to answer

the charges of the complaint at a public hearing before an administrative law judge. Id.

§ 20-1006.

       The administrative law judge conducts the hearing in the county where the alleged

discriminatory act occurred. Id. § 20-1008(a)(2). Testimony at the hearing is taken under

oath and is recorded; a transcript is made of all such testimony. Id. § 20-1008(d). If, after

reviewing all of the evidence, the administrative law judge finds that the respondent has

engaged in a discriminatory act, the administrative law judge (1) issues a decision and order

stating findings of fact and conclusions of law and (2) issues an order requiring the

respondent to “cease and desist from engaging in the discriminatory acts … and … take

affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the applicable subtitle of this title.” Id.

§ 20-1009(a). Various other remedies are also available if there is a finding that the

respondent has engaged in a discriminatory act. See id. § 20-1009(b), (c).

       If, after reviewing all of the evidence, the administrative law judge finds that the

respondent has not engaged in an alleged discriminatory act, the administrative law judge

states findings of fact and conclusions of law and issues an order dismissing the complaint.

Id. § 20-1009(d).

       Unless a timely appeal is filed with the Commission in accordance with the

Commission’s regulations, “a decision and order issued by the administrative law judge

under this section shall become the final order of the Commission.” Id. § 20-1009(e). The

human relations statute is silent concerning judicial review of a final order issued under

                                             5
§ 20-1009(e), but judicial review is available of such an order under the “contested cases”

provisions of Maryland’s Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”): SG § 10-222 (petition

for judicial review filed in circuit court) and SG § 10-223 (appellate review in the Appellate

Court of Maryland for a party aggrieved by circuit court decision issued under § 10-222).

See State Comm’n on Hum. Rels. v. Kaydon Ring & Seal, Inc., 149 Md. App. 666, 690

(2003).

       2. Procedures Following a Finding of No Probable Cause
       Cases like Ms. Rowe’s proceed differently. If, after investigation of the initial

complaint, the Commission finds no probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act has

been or is being committed, the complainant may file a request that the Commission

reconsider its determination. Id. § 20-1005(d)(1). If the Commission denies that request for

reconsideration and if the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not

have jurisdiction over the complaint’s subject matter, then “a denial of a request for

reconsideration of a finding of no probable cause by the Commission is a final order

appealable to the circuit court as provided in § 10-222 of [the State Government Article].”

Id. § 20-1005(d)(2).

   C. Ms. Rowe’s Complaint
       On June 28, 2019, Ms. Rowe filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that

KMMD engaged in disability discrimination by deleting her Facebook comment and by

terminating her gym membership.2 The Commission investigated the complaint, accepting

       2
          Ms. Rowe’s initial charge of discrimination also included an allegation of unlawful
retaliation. The record reflects that Commission staff contacted Ms. Rowe on July 19, 2019,

                                              6
evidence from Ms. Rowe and KMMD. On May 20, 2020, the Commission issued its

written findings, explaining that “the investigation established that [KMMD] had a

legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason, not based on [Ms. Rowe’s] disability, for

terminating her membership because she failed to conform to the usual and regular

requirements, standards, and regulations of [KMMD’s] establishment.” (Cleaned up).

Thus, the Commission concluded that there was not probable cause to believe KMMD had

discriminated against Ms. Rowe based on her disability.

      On May 29, 2020, Ms. Rowe filed a request for reconsideration of the no-probable-

cause finding, which the Commission denied on July 15, 2020. On August 14, 2020, Ms.

Rowe filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of the

Commission’s denial of her request for reconsideration. The circuit court issued an order

affirming the Commission’s decision on February 8, 2021.

      Ms. Rowe then noted an appeal to the Appellate Court. Ms. Rowe raised issues in

her briefing to the Appellate Court concerning the administrative process and the

evidentiary basis for the Commission’s findings. The Commission filed a response brief

addressing the merits of Ms. Rowe’s claims. During oral argument on February 2, 2022,

the Appellate Court panel raised sua sponte the issue of its jurisdiction – specifically,

whether there exists a statute authorizing an appeal to the Appellate Court from the

judgment of the circuit court on a petition for judicial review of a no-probable-cause

finding by the Commission. After receiving supplemental briefing from the parties on the

to “revise charge to remove Retaliation,” and that she revised her complaint to delete the
retaliation claim on July 25, 2019.

                                            7
jurisdictional issue, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in an

unreported opinion. In the Matter of Rowe, No. 0354, Sept. Term, 2021, 2022 WL 1224729

(April 25, 2022). The Appellate Court concluded that SG § 20-1005(d)(2) does not

authorize an appeal to the Appellate Court of a circuit court’s ruling concerning a no-

probable-cause finding by the Commission. Id., 2022 WL 1224729, at *6-*9.

       Ms. Rowe petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted on August

25, 2022. Rowe v. MCCR, 481 Md. 1 (2022). Ms. Rowe presents the following question

for our review, which we have rephrased slightly:

       Does the Appellate Court of Maryland have jurisdiction over appeals from
       circuit courts of petitions for judicial review of Maryland Commission on Civil
       Rights no-probable-cause findings in public accommodations discrimination
       cases?

                                             II

                                   Standard of Review

       Whether the Appellate Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Rowe’s appeal

is a question of law that we review de novo. See Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. ProVen

Mgmt., Inc., 472 Md. 642, 664 (2021).

                                             III

                                        Discussion

       Ms. Rowe argues that the General Assembly expressly has granted the right to

Appellate Court review of an adverse circuit court ruling concerning a Commission no-

probable-cause finding. Her argument proceeds as follows: SG § 20-1005(d)(2) grants the

right to judicial review by the circuit court of no-probable-cause determinations through

                                             8
express incorporation of the circuit court judicial review provision contained in the APA,

SG § 10-222, the same section that provides judicial review in contested cases in circuit

courts. The next section of the APA, SG § 10-223, provides that “[a] party who is aggrieved

by a final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle may appeal to the [Appellate Court

of Maryland] in the manner the law provides for the appeal of civil cases.” SG § 10-

223(b)(1). Ms. Rowe contends that, as a result of the reference to SG § 10-222 in SG § 20-

1005(d)(2), the losing party in the circuit court on a petition for judicial review filed under

SG § 20-1005(d)(2) is aggrieved by a final judgment of a circuit court “under this subtitle”

– the APA’s contested cases subtitle – and therefore is entitled to the same right to review

in the Appellate Court that the losing party in an APA contested case has under SG § 10-

223.

       The Commission argues that the plain language of SG § 20-1005(d)(2) does not

include an express grant of the right to appeal an adverse ruling in the circuit court. Rather,

the Commission contends, SG § 20-1005(d)(2) only expressly provides a right to judicial

review in the circuit court. The Commission asserts that, by referring only to § 10-222 in

§ 20-1005(d)(2) – and not also to § 10-223 or to the APA as a whole – the General

Assembly intentionally limited judicial review with respect to Commission no-probable-

cause findings to the circuit court.

       Resolution of the parties’ competing contentions requires us to interpret

SG § 20-1005(d)(2). As we have stated previously,

       [t]he goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the actual
       intent of the General Assembly in enacting the law under consideration.”
       Matter of Collins, 468 Md. 672, 689 (2020). In conducting this inquiry, “we

                                              9
      begin with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular
      understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its
      terminology.” Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 113 (2018) (internal
      quotation marks and citations omitted). If the statutory language is
      “unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose,
      [the] inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute
      as written, without resort to other rules of construction.” Lockshin v. Semsker,
      412 Md. 257, 275 (2010). We “neither add nor delete language so as to reflect
      an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute,
      and we do not construe a statute with forced or subtle interpretations that
      limit or extend its application.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
      omitted). Rather, we construe the statute “as a whole so that no word, clause,
      sentence, or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or
      nugatory.” Mayor & Town Council of Oakland v. Mayor & Town Council of
      Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301, 316 (2006).

      We do not “read statutory language in a vacuum, nor do we confine strictly
      our interpretation of a statute’s plain language to the isolated section alone.”
      Lockshin, 412 Md. at 275. “Rather, the plain language must be viewed within
      the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs, considering the
      purpose, aim, or policy of the Legislature in enacting the statute.” Id. at 276.
      We presume “that the Legislature intends its enactments to operate together
      as a consistent and harmonious body of law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile
      and harmonize the parts of a statute, to the extent possible consistent with the
      statute’s object and scope.” Id. To the extent there is ambiguity in statutory
      language, we strive to resolve it by “searching for legislative intent in other
      indicia, including the history of the legislation or other relevant sources
      intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process.” Id. We also often review
      legislative history to determine whether it confirms the interpretation
      suggested by our analysis of the statutory language. See, e.g., In re O.P., 470
      Md. 225, 255 (2020). Further, we “check our interpretation against the
      consequences of alternative readings of the text,” Bell v. Chance, 460 Md.
      28, 53 (2018), which “grounds the analysis.” In re O.P., 470 Md. at 255.
      Doing so helps us “avoid a construction of the statute that is unreasonable,
      illogical, or inconsistent with common sense,” Mayor & Town Council of
      Oakland, 392 Md. at 316; see also Bell, 460 Md. at 53 (explaining that,
      throughout the statutory interpretation process, “we avoid constructions that
      are illogical or nonsensical, or that render a statute meaningless”).

Pabst Brewing Co. v. Frederick P. Winner, Ltd., 478 Md. 61, 75-76 (2022).

                                            10
   A. The Statutes Governing Appellate Review From Judgments of the Circuit
      Court Generally

       “It is an often stated principle of Maryland law that appellate jurisdiction, except as

constitutionally authorized, is determined entirely by statute, and that, therefore, a right of

appeal must be legislatively granted.” Gisriel v. Ocean City Bd. of Supervisors of Elections,

345 Md. 477, 485 (1997) (citing Maryland-Nat’l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm’n v. Smith, 333

Md. 3, 6 (1993) (“The right to take an appeal is entirely statutory, and no person or agency

may prosecute an appeal unless the right is given by statute.”)). A general right to appeal

from a judgment of the circuit court exists under § 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial

Proceedings Article:

       Except as provided in § 12-302 of this subtitle, a party may appeal from a
       final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case by a circuit court. The right
       of appeal exists from a final judgment entered by a court in the exercise of
       original, special, limited, statutory jurisdiction, unless in a particular case the
       right of appeal is expressly denied by law.

Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. (CJP) § 12-301 (2020 Repl. Vol.). The next section limits this

broad appeal right in some cases:

       Unless a right to appeal is expressly granted by law, § 12-301 of this subtitle
       does not permit an appeal from a final judgment of a court entered or made
       in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in reviewing the decision of … an
       administrative agency[.]

Id. § 12-302(a); see Gisriel, 345 Md. at 486.3

       A complaint seeking statutory judicial review of an administrative agency decision

is not technically an invocation of “appellate jurisdiction” but rather is an original action

       3
         This Court described the history of this exception, from its origin in 1785 to
relatively modern times, in Gisriel, 345 Md. at 487-90.

                                               11
for judicial review. Thus, CJP § 12-302(a) uses the phrase “appellate jurisdiction” in a

nontechnical sense. Kant v. Montgomery County, 365 Md. 269, 274 (2001) (“Although

§ 12-302(a) refers to a circuit court exercising ‘appellate jurisdiction’ in reviewing the

decision of an administrative agency or local legislative body, the word ‘appellate’ is a

misnomer in this context. As we have often pointed out, a circuit court action reviewing

the adjudicatory decision of an administrative agency or local legislative body is not an

‘appeal.’”). This Court has held that § 12-302(a) removes circuit court judgments

reviewing administrative agency decisions from CJP § 12-301’s general right of appeal.

See id. at 274-75; Prince George’s County v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 358 Md. 166, 176-77

(2000); Gisriel, 345 Md. at 496. “[A]ny right of appeal in such a case must be found in

some other statute.” Murrell v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 376 Md. 170, 185 (2003).

       Ms. Rowe appealed from a final judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,

which exercised “appellate jurisdiction” (within the meaning of CJP § 12-302(a)) to affirm

the Commission’s denial of Ms. Rowe’s motion for reconsideration. In order for the

intermediate appellate court to have jurisdiction over Ms. Rowe’s appeal, CJP § 12-302(a)

requires an expressly granted right to appeal rooted in a statutory authorization other than

CJP § 12-301.

   B. The Proposed Other Statutory Authorization

       Ms. Rowe contends that SG § 20-1005(d)(2) provides that express authorization.

That subsection states that (unless the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has

jurisdiction over the complaint) the Commission’s denial of reconsideration of its no-

                                            12
probable-cause finding is “a final order appealable to the circuit court as provided in [SG]

§ 10-222.”

       The APA is found in the State Government Article, Title 10, Subtitles 1, 2, and 3 of

the Maryland Code. Section 10-222 concerns circuit court review under Subtitle 2, the

APA’s “Contested Cases” subtitle. A “contested case,” as relevant here, is a “proceeding

before an agency to determine … a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a

person that is required by statute or constitution to be determined only after an opportunity

for an agency hearing[.]” SG § 10-202(d)(1)(i).

       Section 10-222 provides a right of judicial review in the circuit court to “a party

who is aggrieved by the final decision in a contested case[.]” Id. § 10-222(a)(1). A petition

for judicial review must be filed with the circuit court for the county in which “any party

resides or has a principal place of business.” Id. § 10-222(c). The section goes on to outline

the procedures for judicial review of an agency action in a contested case, including rules

governing intervention by other interested persons and the taking of additional evidence

before the agency. See id. § 10-222(d), (f). The statute directs the circuit court to “conduct

a proceeding under this section without a jury,” id. § 10-222(g)(1), following which the

court may:

       (1) remand the case for further proceedings;

       (2) affirm the final decision; or

       (3) reverse or modify the decision if any substantial right of the petitioner
           may have been prejudiced because a finding, conclusion, or decision:

              (i) is unconstitutional;

                                             13
              (ii) exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the final decision
                      maker;
              (iii) results from an unlawful procedure;
              (iv) is affected by any other error of law;
              (v) is unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in
                      light of the entire record as submitted;
              (vi) in a case involving termination of employment or employee
                      discipline, fails to reasonably state the basis for the termination
                      or the nature and extent of the penalty or sanction imposed by
                      the agency; or
              (vii) is arbitrary or capricious.

Id. § 10-222(h).

       A discrimination complaint prior to a finding of probable cause is not a “contested

case” under the APA. See Parlato v. State Comm’n on Hum. Rels., 76 Md. App. 695, 701-

03 (1988) (holding that a charge of employment discrimination within the jurisdiction of

the EEOC, and therefore not subject to judicial review under the predecessor to

SG § 20-1005(d)(2)), is not a “contested case,” and thus judicial review is also unavailable

under the APA). This is so because a complainant is not entitled to, and does not receive,

a quasi-judicial hearing prior to the Commission making its determination regarding

probable cause. The Commission’s work is investigative, not quasi-judicial, at this stage

of the process. Id. at 703; cf. Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm’n vs. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.,

443 Md. 265, 274-78 (2015) (refund claims brought under § 25-106 of the Public Utility

Article are contested cases under the APA, because the agency is required to hold a hearing

to determine whether the claimant is entitled to a refund and, if so, in what amount).

       SG § 20-1005(d)(2)’s reference to SG § 10-222 means that the circuit court must

conduct its review of the Commission’s no-probable-cause determination, to the extent

applicable, as it conducts its review in a contested case under § 10-222. Some of § 10-222’s

                                              14
provisions can, and therefore do, have application to judicial review of Commission

no-probable-cause determinations. Thus, a complainant who seeks judicial review of a

no-probable-cause determination must file their petition with the circuit court for the

county in which “any party resides or has a principal place of business,” SG § 10-222(c),

and “[t]he court may permit any other interested persons to intervene[.]” Id. § 10-222(d)(1).

The circuit court, in its decision, may affirm the Commission’s determination or “reverse

or modify” it “if any substantial right of the petitioner may have been prejudiced” because

a finding, conclusion, or decision of the Commission is (among other things) arbitrary or

capricious. Id. § 10-222(h)(2), (h)(3).

       However, other portions of § 10-222 have no application to judicial review of

no-probable-cause determinations because no quasi-judicial hearing has occurred at the

Commission. For example, § 10-222(f)(2) provides that the circuit court “may order the

presiding officer to take additional evidence” under certain circumstances. That subsection

has no application to judicial review of a no-probable-cause finding, because no “evidence”

has previously been taken.

       While SG § 20-1005(d)(2) effectively incorporates SG § 10-222’s procedures (to

the extent applicable) into the judicial review process for Commission no-probable-cause

findings, § 20-1005(d)(2) is silent concerning an appeal from the circuit court to the

intermediate appellate court. The parties’ core disagreement is whether, despite

SG § 20-1005(d)(2)’s silence concerning review beyond the circuit court, the Appellate

Court has jurisdiction to review a circuit court’s ruling concerning a Commission no-

probable-cause finding under SG § 10-223.

                                             15
       Section 10-223 concerns appeals from the circuit court to the intermediate appellate

court under the APA’s contested cases subtitle, reading in relevant part: “A party who is

aggrieved by a final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle may appeal to the

[Appellate Court of Maryland] in the manner that law provides for appeal of civil cases.”

(Emphasis added). Section 10-222 is part of “this subtitle,” as referenced in § 10-223. The

question thus becomes: Is a circuit court’s ruling on a petition for judicial review of a

Commission no-probable-cause finding under § 20-1005(d)(2) (part of Subtitle 20 of the

State Government Article) “a final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle,” i.e.,

Subtitle 2? To answer this question, we look first to the plain language of § 20-1005(d)(2).

       1. The Plain Language of SG § 20-1005(d)(2)

       Section 20-1005(d)(2) is unambiguous. It expressly provides for judicial review in

“the circuit court,” not the Appellate Court. It expressly references SG § 10-222 – the APA

provision regarding judicial review of agency decisions in circuit courts – and nothing else.

Thus, the plain language of the statute indicates that the General Assembly intended to

confine judicial review of no-probable-cause determinations to the circuit court.

       Nevertheless, Ms. Rowe argues that the text of SG § 20-1005(d)(2) indicates that

no-probable-cause findings should be treated in every regard as though they were APA

contested cases. Specifically, she contends:

       Since an appeal of a no-probable-cause determination to the circuit court
       pursuant to SG § 20-1005(d) occurs via SG § 10-222, it follows that any
       decision rendered by a circuit court via that procedure occurs under the
       APA—Contested Cases subtitle. A party who loses her appeal before the
       circuit court pursuant to SG § 20-1005(d)(2)’s invocation of SG § 10-222 is
       therefore a party “aggrieved by a final judgment of a circuit court under this

                                               16
       subtitle,” the APA—Contested Cases [subtitle], for purposes of SG § 10-223
       appellate review.

Similarly, Ms. Rowe characterizes § 20-1005(d)(2)’s reference to § 10-222 elsewhere in

her briefing as “provid[ing] for circuit court review of no-probable-cause determinations

under SG § 10-222.”

       Ms. Rowe overstates the connection between SG § 20-1005(d)(2) and the APA. The

reference to § 10-222 in § 20-1005(d)(2) does not transform Ms. Rowe’s claim into a

petition for judicial review “via” or “under” the APA. As discussed above, the

Commission’s investigation of Ms. Rowe’s discrimination complaint was not a contested

case. See Parlato, 76 Md. App. at 701. Although Ms. Rowe’s circuit court case followed

SG § 10-222’s procedures to the extent they apply to a review of a Commission no-

probable-cause finding, her case never became a contested case brought under the APA;

rather, it retained its essence as a petition for judicial review arising under § 20-1005(d)(2).

The reference in § 20-1005(d)(2) to § 10-222 does not transform an initial investigation

and no-probable-cause finding into an APA contested case as to which every provision of

the entire APA – including SG § 10-223 – applies. Jurisdiction arises under the human

relations statute, not under the APA or somehow under both.

       Elsewhere in the Human Relations title – and throughout the Code4 – the General

Assembly has referenced not one specific section, but rather the entire APA contested cases

       4
        See, e.g., Md. Code, Crim. Law § 4-107(i) (2021 Repl. Vol.) (providing that a
person aggrieved by a decision of the Secretary of Public Safety with respect to a permit
to purchase, possess, and use bulletproof body armor “may seek review of the decision
under Title 10, Subtitle 2 of the State Government Article”); Md. Code, Trans. § 5-201(c)
(2020 Repl. Vol.) (“Any person aggrieved by an order of the Administration or by the

                                              17
subtitle or the APA as a whole, when it has sought to apply all of the APA’s judicial review

provisions (including review in the Appellate Court) to a particular agency proceeding.

One example just a few sections away from § 20-1005(d)(2) stands out: The housing

discrimination part of the Human Relations title’s enforcement subtitle specifies that “any

party aggrieved by a final order for relief under § 20-1029 of this subtitle may obtain

judicial review of the order in accordance with the provisions for judicial review under

Title 10, Subtitle 2 of this article.” SG § 20-1030(a) (emphasis added). This language

expressly refers to the entire APA contested cases subtitle, rendering applicable both

§ 10-222 and § 10-223 and thereby providing for Appellate Court review of circuit court

rulings on petitions for judicial review of final administrative orders in housing

grant, denial, suspension, or revocation of any license, certificate, or other approval may
appeal as provided by the Administrative Procedure Act.”); see also id. § 12-209(b); Md.
Code, State Fin. & Proc. (SFP) § 15-223 (2021 Repl. Vol.) (providing that a decision of
the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals “is subject to judicial review in accordance
with Title 10, Subtitle 2 of the State Government Article”). We discuss SFP § 15-223
further in footnote 8 below.

                                            18
discrimination cases.5 Other statutes expressly refer to SG § 10-2236 or to the intermediate

appellate court7 itself in establishing the extent of review of agency action.

       These provisions in the Human Relations title and throughout the Code show that

the General Assembly knows how to expressly provide for Appellate Court review of a

circuit court’s decision on a petition for judicial review when it wants to do so. The General

Assembly has used varying language to effect these express grants of appellate review.

       5
         The Dissent notes that the General Assembly enacted § 20-1030(a) in 1991,
several years after it amended § 20-1005(d)(2) to provide judicial review of no-probable-
cause findings. It is telling that, in choosing language to provide Appellate Court review
of housing discrimination cases, the General Assembly did not import § 20-1005(d)(2)’s
language referencing § 10-222 into its new neighbor, § 20-1030(a), but instead referenced
Subtitle 2 of the APA in its entirety in § 20-1030(a).
       6
         See, e.g., Md. Code, Tax-Prop. § 8-215(e) (2019 Repl. Vol.) (“A country club or
golf course may appeal any action taken under this section as provided by §§ 10-222 and
10-223 of the State Government Article.”); Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-815(c) (2018 Repl.
Vol.) (“Within 30 days after the final decision of the Executive Director [of the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board], a claimant aggrieved by that decision may appeal the
decision under §§ 10-222 and 10-223 of the State Government Article.”); Md. Code, Env’t
§ 4-412(b) (2014 Repl. Vol.) (“A person aggrieved by an order or permit issued may obtain
immediate judicial review under the provisions of §§ 10-222 and 10-223 of the State
Government Article and the Maryland Rules.”); see also Md. Code, Bus. Reg. § 4-312
(2015 Repl. Vol.); Md. Code, Health-Gen. § 7-407 (2019 Repl. Vol.); Md. Code, Health
Occ. § 21-314 (2021 Repl. Vol.); Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. (LE) § 3-906(j) (2016 Repl.
Vol.); Md. Code, Nat. Res. § 5-608(c)(3) (2018 Repl. Vol.); Md. Code, Pub. Safety (PS)
§ 3-212(c) (2018 Repl. Vol.); Md. Code, Tax-Gen. § 13-532(a) (2016 Repl. Vol.); Md.
Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 2-210 (2018 Repl. Vol.).
       7
         See, e.g., Md. Code, Corr. Servs. § 10-911(b) (2017 Repl. Vol.) (“A party
aggrieved by a decision of a court under this subtitle may appeal to the [Appellate Court
of Maryland],” after having provided in § 10-911(a) for initial judicial review in the circuit
court); PS § 5-110 (“The Secretary or the applicant may appeal the decision of the circuit
court to the Court of Special Appeals.”); see also LE § 4-602; Md. Code, Fin. Inst. (FI)
§ 11-218(d) (2020 Repl. Vol.); Md. Code, Land Use § 9-1005(c) (2012 Repl. Vol.);
FI § 11-416(e).

                                             19
However, the distinctions in language from one statute to another are immaterial; they all

contain express language demonstrating that the General Assembly intends for review of

the particular kind of agency decision to continue beyond the circuit court to the Appellate

Court.

         Section 20-1005(d)(2) is different. Unlike all of these other statutes, § 20-1005(d)(2)

only references the APA’s contested cases circuit court procedures.8 Ms. Rowe chalks this

         8
        The judicial review provision pertaining to whistleblower claims contains
language similar to § 20-1005(d)(2) in that it authorizes review “in accordance with
§ 10-222 of the State Government Article.” Md. Code, State Pers. & Pens. (SPP) § 5-310(e)
(2015 Repl. Vol.). However, SPP § 5-310(e) is distinguishable from SG § 20-1005(d)(2)
in an important respect.

        Prior to 1996, the predecessor to SPP § 5-310(e) provided that “[a] complainant or
appointing authority may appeal the decision issued under subsection (e) of this section in
accordance with §§ 10-215 and 10-216 of the State Government Article.”
SPP § 3-308(g)(1) (1994 Repl. Vol.) (emphasis added). Sections 10-215 and 10-216 were
the predecessors of § 10-222 and § 10-223, respectively. Thus, prior to 1996, the
predecessor to SPP § 5-310(e) expressly referenced both the APA’s circuit court and
Appellate Court judicial review sections. In 1996, as part of the reorganization of the State
Personnel and Pensions Article, the General Assembly moved the whistleblower judicial
review provision from § 3-308(g)(1) to new § 5-310(e). In the new version of the provision,
the General Assembly referenced only § 10-222 of the State Government Article. In doing
so, the General Assembly gave no indication that it had purposefully eliminated Appellate
Court review of circuit court decisions in whistleblower cases. This absence is notable
because an earlier Revisor’s Note pointed out that SPP § 3-308(g)(1)’s “former reference
to the ‘judicial review standards of the Administrative Procedure Act’ is deleted as
unnecessary in light of the specific reference to the governing provisions – i.e., §§ 10-215
and 10-216 of the State Government Article.” SPP § 3-308, Rev. Note (1994). Given the
General Assembly’s explicit prior recognition of both circuit court and appellate review of
administrative decisions in whistleblower cases, it would be strange to whittle down such
review without comment while reorganizing the State Personnel and Pensions Article.

       The Appellate Court considered an analogous situation in Department of General
Services v. Harmans Associates Limited Partnership, 98 Md. App. 535 (1993). In
Harmans, after the Board of Contract Appeals ruled in favor of the contractor, the
Department of General Services sought judicial review of the Board’s decision under SFP

                                               20
up to “inartful drafting” and contends that the absence of an express reference to § 10-223

is not enough to justify the inference that § 20-1005(d)(2)’s references to the circuit court

and to § 10-222 mean that only the circuit court has jurisdiction to review a Commission

§ 15-223. 98 Md. App. at 541, 544. The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the
contractor, and DGS appealed to the Appellate Court. Id. at 541. The contractor filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, based on the fact that (at that time)
SFP § 15-223 only referenced a right to judicial review “in accordance with § 10-215 of
the State Government article,” the predecessor to current SG § 10-222. The predecessor to
SFP § 15-223 (SFP § 11-139) had referred to judicial review in accordance with the
provisions of “title 10, subtitle 2 of the State Government article (Administrative Procedure
Act—Contested Cases).” As part of the Code Revision process, SFP § 11-139 was
recodified as SFP § 15-223. At that time, the reference to “title 10, subtitle 2” of the APA
changed to a specific reference to SG § 10-215. However, the Revisor’s Note for that bill
stated that “[t]his section is new language derived without substantive change from former
SF §§ 11-137(e) and 11-139.” Harmans, 98 Md. App. at 545. The Appellate Court stated
that it “would regard an abrogation of the right of appeal from the decision of the circuit
court to be a substantive change in the law, and thus presume from the Revisor’s Note that
the Legislature did not intend such a result.” Id. at 545-46. The Appellate Court denied the
contractor’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the reference only to SG § 10-215 in SFP
§ 15-223 was a “Code Revision error.” Id. at 543. Notably, the Appellate Court did not
perceive a right to appeal to the Appellate Court based on the language of SG § 10-216 (the
predecessor to current § 10-223).

       Following the Appellate Court’s decision in Harmans, the General Assembly did
not indicate that it believed the reference in SFP § 15-223 to SG § 10-215 by itself
triggered jurisdiction under SG § 10-216, thus making it unnecessary to amend
SFP § 15-223 to confirm the Appellate Court’s jurisdiction. Rather, the General Assembly
passed a corrective bill reinstating the prior, broader language of former SFP § 11-139 (“A
decision of the Appeals Board is subject to judicial review in accordance with Title 10,
Subtitle 2 of the State Government Article.”). See 1994 Md. Laws ch. 3 at 151.

       It appears that, when the General Assembly moved the provision formerly contained
in SPP § 3-308(g)(1) to new § 5-310(e), it may have made an error similar to the one the
Appellate Court discussed in Harmans. What previously had been a reference to the
predecessors of both §§ 10-222 and 10-223 became a reference only to § 10-222. Here, in
contrast to SPP § 5-310(e), SG § 20-1005(d)(2) since its enactment in 1982 has always
referred only to SG § 10-222 (or its predecessor). That cannot be attributed to a Code
Revision error.

                                              21
no-probable-cause finding. She cites legislative history (see § III.B.2 below) indicating that

the General Assembly intended to create the opportunity for judicial review of no-

probable-cause findings. The General Assembly did precisely that, but it created one level

of judicial review rather than two. In this regard, § 20-1005(d)(2) resembles enactments of

local legislative bodies that have authorized circuit court judicial review of administrative

decisions without granting a right to further review to the Appellate Court. See, e.g., Beretta

U.S.A. Corp., 358 Md. at 169, 174; Dvorak v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Ethics Comm’n, 400

Md. 446, 458-59 (2007). In such cases, legislative bodies have concluded that one level of

judicial review of an administrative decision is sufficient. The plain language of SG § 20-

1005(d)(2) reflects that the General Assembly came to the same conclusion regarding

judicial review of Commission no-probable-cause determinations.

       Notably, there is no specific grant in the State Government Article, Subtitle 20, of

judicial review of final orders of the Commission issued under SG § 20-1009 after an

administrative law judge has conducted an administrative hearing under SG § 20-1008. A

specific grant of judicial review of such a final order is unnecessary because the

administrative hearing required under § 20-1008 is inherently a contested case for purposes

of the APA. Thus, judicial review of that kind of final order arises directly under the APA.

See State Comm’n on Hum. Rels. v. Kaydon Ring & Seal, Inc., 149 Md. App. 666, 690

(2003). Unlike a § 20-1009 order issued after an administrative hearing, the General

Assembly understood that it had to provide an express grant of judicial review of the kind

of final order at issue in this case because the investigative phase of a discrimination

complaint is not a contested case. If the General Assembly had wanted the judicial review

                                              22
it was creating for no-probable-cause findings to be equivalent to the multi-level judicial

review already afforded for final agency orders issued under § 20-1009, the General

Assembly could have referenced § 20-1009 in § 20-1005(d)(2), perhaps providing that “a

denial of a request for reconsideration of a finding of no probable cause by the Commission

is a final order subject to judicial review equivalent to the review of a final order issued

under § 20-1009 of this subtitle.” Against the backdrop of the multi-level judicial review

applicable to § 20-1009 final orders after administrative hearings on discrimination

complaints, the General Assembly’s decision in § 20-1005(d)(2) to reference only the APA

provisions applicable to circuit court review is significant.

       In sum, the statutory language is unambiguous: “appealable to the circuit court as

provided in [SG] § 10-222” means precisely what it says. It does not mean “appealable to

the circuit court as provided in § 10-222 as well as the intermediate appellate court as

provided in § 10-223 and any other provisions of the contested cases subtitle of the

Administrative Procedure Act.” 9 At most, § 20-1005(d)(2)’s reference to § 10-222, read in

conjunction with § 10-223, arguably can be read to impliedly contemplate further review

       9
          The Dissent notes that SG § 10-222 refers to “a final decision in a contested case,”
whereas § 10-223(b)(1) refers to “a final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle.”
Dissent Slip Op. at 7-8. Based on this, the Dissent suggests that § 10-222 only applies to
contested cases, while § 10-223 applies to more than contested cases. See Dissent Slip Op.
at 7-8. But “this subtitle” in § 10-223 means Subtitle 2 of the APA: the Contested Cases
subtitle. Thus, § 10-223 does not, by its own terms, authorize an appeal to the Appellate
Court of a circuit court judgment in something other than a contested case. In order for
§ 10-223 to apply to such a judgment, another statute must expressly render the provisions
of § 10-223 applicable to that judgment. The Maryland Code is replete with statutes that
do just that. See footnotes 4, 6, and 7 above. Sections 20-1005(d)(2) and 10-222 are not
among them.

                                             23
in the Appellate Court. But an implied right of appeal is not enough. Section 20-1005(d)(2)

does not expressly authorize further review in the Appellate Court. Nor does SG § 10-223

expressly authorize such review. The circuit court’s judgment on a petition for judicial

review of a Commission no-probable-cause determination is not a final judgment under

§ 10-222. Rather, it is a final judgment issued under § 20-1005(d)(2).

       2. Legislative History

       Although SG § 20-1005(d)(2)’s plain language is unambiguous and our analysis

need not proceed any further, a review of the pertinent legislative history of the statute does

not convince us that the General Assembly intended to provide two levels of judicial review

of Commission no-probable-cause findings.

       Before recodification in SG § 20-1005(a)-(c), the former Article 49B § 10(a)-(c) set

out the Commission’s duties regarding the investigation of complaints and conciliation

after probable cause findings, and it contained no grant of judicial review. That changed in

1982. In the employment discrimination case Vavasori v. Maryland Commission on

Human Relations, Mr. Vavasori appealed a no-probable-cause finding to the Baltimore

City Court.10 Docket No. 24P, No. 9-103866 (Balt. City Court Jan. 13, 1982). The

employer-respondent challenged the City Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the

administrative appeal was not a contested case and therefore did not qualify for APA

judicial review; the City Court agreed and dismissed the appeal on January 13, 1982. See

       10
         “The Baltimore City Court was consolidated with the other courts of the Supreme
Bench of Baltimore City into the newly created Circuit Court for Baltimore City on January
1, 1983.” Vavasori v. Comm’n on Hum. Rels., 65 Md. App. 237, 240 n.1 (1985) (citing
Chapter 523 of the Acts of 1980, ratified Nov. 4, 1980).

                                              24
Vavasori v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., No. 209, slip op. at 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 27, 1982)

(summarizing the January 1982 circuit court proceedings) (together with the City Court

dismissal, “Vavasori I”).

       The General Assembly reacted swiftly. On January 22, 1982, Senator Edward

Conroy introduced Senate Bill 419 to amend Article 49B, § 10 by adding subsection (d),

and it was enacted that April as Ch. 129, Acts of 1982. According to the preamble to that

law, its passage was “for the purpose of creating a right of appeal from a no probable cause

finding by the Human Relations Commission under certain circumstances.” The Revised

Fiscal Note states that the amendment to the human relations statute “provides that a denial

by the State’s Human Relations Commission of a request for reconsideration of a

Commission finding of ‘no probable cause’ in discrimination cases is to be considered a

final order, appealable to the circuit courts under the judicial review provisions of the

State’s Administration [sic] Procedure Act[.]” SB 419, Revised Fiscal Note, at 1 (Md. Laws

1982). The bill file contains both the January 1982 City Court ruling and the December

1981 brief prepared by the Vavasori employer-respondent arguing that the administrative

appeal should be dismissed. See S.B. 419, Session No. 388 at 56-61 (Md. Laws 1982). The

General Assembly passed the bill in April of 1982, and the new provision appears post-

recodification as SG § 20-1005(d).

       Following the January 1982 dismissal of the circuit court action for judicial review,

Mr. Vavasori filed a notice of appeal. By the time the intermediate appellate court issued

an opinion 10 months later, S.B. 419 had taken effect to authorize circuit courts to review

no-probable-cause findings. The Appellate Court applied the amendment retroactively and

                                            25
remanded Mr. Vavasori’s case to the lower court for a decision on the merits. See Vavasori

I, slip op. at 4. In January 1985, the circuit court affirmed the Commission’s no-probable-

cause finding. In November 1985, the Appellate Court affirmed. Vavasori v. Comm’n on

Hum. Rels., 65 Md. App. 237, 253 (1985) (Vavasori II).

            a. The Significance of Vavasori I and II

       Ms. Rowe asserts that the Vavasori decisions are relevant to a proper understanding

of the legislative history of § 20-1005(d)(2) for two reasons. First, Ms. Rowe argues that

the Vavasori I materials’ presence in the bill file shows that the General Assembly intended

for S.B. 419 to respond to the outcome in Vavasori and provide judicial review for no-

probable-cause findings like Mr. Vavasori’s. She is right; S.B. 419 did solve the Vavasori

problem, providing for judicial review in the circuit court of certain Commission no-

probable-cause findings. However, S.B. 419 expressly limited judicial review of such

findings by ruling out review in the entire class of cases over which the EEOC has

concurrent jurisdiction. Ms. Rowe does not explain how it follows from the General

Assembly’s decision to create a limited right of judicial review of no-probable-cause

findings in the circuit court that the General Assembly necessarily intended there would be

a second level of review for the subset of cases over which the EEOC lacks jurisdiction.11

       11
          We are not persuaded by Ms. Rowe’s contention that, because the Commission is
the sole administrative decisionmaker with respect to claims of public accommodations
discrimination (unlike claims over which the EEOC has concurrent jurisdiction), the
General Assembly must have intended to provide two levels of judicial review. See section
III.B.3 below.

                                             26
       Second, Ms. Rowe argues that the very existence of the November 1985 Appellate

Court opinion in Vavasori II is evidence of the General Assembly’s intent to make judicial

review available in the intermediate appellate court, because that court itself exercised

jurisdiction over the case and affirmed the circuit court’s January 1985 post-remand

opinion. Ms. Rowe is correct that the Vavasori II Court addressed Mr. Vavasori’s

contentions on the merits:

       After a review of the facts heretofore discussed, we find evidence to support
       the Commission’s conclusion that there was no probable cause to believe that
       the appellant was the victim of discrimination. We agree with the court below
       that the evidence supporting the Commission's finding is substantial.

65 Md. App. at 251-52. Because Vavasori II acknowledged the jurisdictional issue that

originally had resulted in the dismissal of the case in the lower court, Ms. Rowe argues that

the Appellate Court’s treatment of the merits following the addition of the language now

contained in § 20-1005(d)(2) underscores the Appellate Court’s understanding that the

General Assembly intended to confer a second level of judicial review. The Commission,

meanwhile, argues that the only two issues before the Appellate Court in Vavasori II were

a due process claim and whether the no-probable-cause finding was supported by

substantial evidence, not whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction over the appeal from

the circuit court.

       The Commission is correct that the Vavasori II opinion contains no discussion of

the Appellate Court’s jurisdiction. In any event, neither the apparent acquiescence of the

parties to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction nor the intermediate appellate court’s

exercise of jurisdiction in Vavasori II is relevant to our determination of whether there

                                             27
actually is an express statutory grant of appellate jurisdiction. See Miller and Smith at

Quercus, LLC v. Casey PMN, LLC, 412 Md. 230, 240-41 (2010) (discussing this Court’s

obligation to dismiss a case sua sponte after finding it lacks jurisdiction, even where the

parties agree jurisdiction should exist or the Appellate Court has entertained an appeal

without jurisdiction). There is no doubt that this Court must affirm the Appellate Court’s

dismissal of this case if we conclude that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it,

even if Vavasori II stands as an example of an earlier panel of the Appellate Court

exercising jurisdiction over the substance of a similar case. In that sense, the Vavasori II

Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction is of little concern to us for its own sake, and

instead the only relevant question is whether the fact that the Vavasori II Court reached the

merits of Mr. Vavasori’s claims reveals enough about the General Assembly’s

understanding of SG § 20-1005(d)(2) to sway our reading of the statute’s plain text. We

are not so swayed. It is the job of courts to ascertain legislative intent; court rulings

generally do not shed light on legislative intent. Thus, Vavasori II strikes us as an erroneous

exercise of jurisdiction, rather than as a clear indicator that the General Assembly intended

two levels of judicial review despite the language of the statute.12

       12
          The fact that the Commission did not raise a challenge concerning the Appellate
Court’s jurisdiction in its briefing before the Appellate Court in this case also is immaterial
to our analysis. Relatedly, we respectfully disagree with the Dissent’s characterization of
the time that has elapsed since Vavasori II as a period of legislative “inaction.” See Dissent
Slip Op. at 11. Neither Ms. Rowe nor the Dissenting Opinion cites a reported appellate
court opinion between Vavasori II and the Appellate Court’s opinion in this case in which
the court has considered the merits of an appeal challenging a circuit court’s ruling on
judicial review of a Commission no-probable-cause determination. Nor have we found
such a reported opinion. Given that the question of the Appellate Court’s jurisdiction was
not at issue in Vavasori II and that there has not been a subsequent reported opinion of the

                                              28
            b. The Fiscal Note and Other Legislative Materials

       Ms. Rowe points to several other items in the bill file that she contends reveal the

General Assembly’s intent. First, the Revised Fiscal Note summarized S.B. 419’s effect as

causing a no-probable-cause finding to be “considered a final order, appealable to circuit

courts under the judicial review provisions of the State’s Administration [sic] Procedure

Act, provided that the [EEOC] does not hold jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

complaint.” Revised Fiscal Note, 1982 Md. Laws, Ch. 129 (S.B. 419), at 1 (emphasis

added). Ms. Rowe highlights that “provisions” is plural, therefore evincing the General

Assembly’s intent to apply multiple sections of the APA. Setting aside the fact that a fiscal

note is not the binding text of a statute, this excerpt does not clearly mean that the General

Assembly wished to apply multiple sections of the APA. A “provision” is “a clause in a

statute, contract, or other legal instrument.” Provision, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.

2019). SG § 10-222 itself contains multiple provisions setting forth the procedures for

circuit court review of agency decisions, and the Revised Fiscal Note does not reveal any

intent to look outside that section.13

Appellate Court exercising jurisdiction (let alone considering the statutory basis to do so),
we do not think anything can be gleaned from the General Assembly’s silence to date on
this issue.
       13
          As stated above, the Department of Fiscal Services wrote in the Revised Fiscal
Note for S.B. 419 that a Commission no-probable-cause finding would be “appealable to
the circuit courts under the provisions of the State’s Administration [sic] Procedure Act[.]”
(Emphasis added). That description of the bill does not convince us that the General
Assembly intended SG § 10-223 to apply to final orders issued under SG § 20-1005(d)(2).
Section 10-223(b)(1) provides that “[a] party who is aggrieved by a final judgment of a
circuit court under this subtitle may appeal to the [Appellate Court.]” We read that
language to apply specifically to contested cases governed by the APA. The Revised Fiscal

                                             29
       Second, the Maryland Commission for Women submitted testimony that noted the

absence of an “appeal process,” and Ms. Rowe reads “process” to mean more than one

step. See Letter from Maryland Commission for Women to the Constitutional and Public

Law Committee (Feb. 4, 1982) in 1982 Md. Laws, Ch. 129 (S.B. 419) (“Currently … there

is no appeal process available for persons who receive a no probable cause finding.”). This,

too, is an overreading of legislative materials. There is no basis to conclude from this letter

that the General Assembly, in enacting an “appeal process” that only referred to

SG § 10-222, intended two levels of judicial review.14

       3. Our Reading of the Statute Does Not Lead to An Illogical Result.

       There is nothing illogical about giving effect to the plain language of

SG § 20-1005(d)(2). The difference between a Commission no-probable-cause finding

after an investigation and a Commission final order after an administrative hearing supports

the notion that the General Assembly intended to authorize one level of judicial review for

the former and at least two levels of judicial review for the latter. The Commission’s

Note contains different language – “under the provisions of the [APA]” – and the actual
operative language of § 20-1005(d)(2) is “as provided in § 10-222[.]” The General
Assembly’s reference to what is “provided in § 10-222” – consistent with the Revised
Fiscal Note’s reference to the “provisions of the [APA]” – means that circuit court judges
should follow § 10-222’s procedures when considering petitions for judicial review of
Commission no-probable-cause findings to the extent those provisions may be applicable.
The reference in § 20-1005(d)(2) to what is “provided” in § 10-222 does not transform a
petition for judicial review filed under § 20-1005(d)(2) into a petition for judicial review
filed “under” the APA. Nor does it transform a final order issued under § 20-1005(d)(2)
into a “final judgment under [the APA].”
       14
         Indeed, notes from the March 31, 1982 Constitutional and Administrative Law
Committee public hearing indicate that advocates testified that “[t]here has been some
question as to whether these people had any right of appeal.” (Emphasis in original.)

                                              30
post-complaint investigative process determines whether there is probable cause to believe

a discriminatory act has been committed, initiating conciliatory efforts if probable cause

exists. SG § 20-1005(b). At the same time, the investigative process operates to protect

respondents from frivolous claims. See State Comm’n on Hum. Rels. v. Talbot Cnty. Det.

Ctr., 370 Md. 115, 135 (2002). Whether to afford one or two levels of judicial review with

respect to Commission no-probable-cause determinations is a policy decision that was and

is the General Assembly’s to make. The plain language of § 20-1005(d)(2) indicates that

the General Assembly decided that the amount of judicial review following a no-probable-

cause determination should be less than the judicial review available after an administrative

hearing. That legislative judgment is not illogical, let alone unconstitutional or otherwise

contrary to law. Here, Ms. Rowe availed herself of judicial review of the Commission’s

finding, and the statutory scheme’s purposes are not frustrated by limiting review to the

circuit court rather than extending it to the Appellate Court. The General Assembly, of

course, may amend § 20-1005(d)(2) to add a grant of review to the Appellate Court if it

decides that, going forward, one level of judicial review of no-probable-cause

determinations is insufficient.

                                             IV

                                        Conclusion

       When state law requires an express grant of the right to appeal from judicial review

of an agency decision, that grant must truly be express. The plain language of

SG § 20-1005(d)(2) specifically references only SG § 10-222 of the APA, which applies

to circuit court judicial review. Section 20-1005(d)(2), therefore, is not an express grant of

                                             31
review in the Appellate Court of Commission no-probable-cause findings. Nor does

§ 10-223 of the APA operate as an express grant of a second level of appellate review of

such findings, because a circuit court judgment reviewing a no-probable-cause finding

under SG § 20-1005(d)(2) is not a “final judgment under” the APA. For these reasons, the

Appellate Court correctly dismissed Ms. Rowe’s appeal.

                                        JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE
                                        COURT OF MARYLAND AFFIRMED.
                                        COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.

                                          32
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-20-003503
Argued: December 5, 2022

                                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT

                                                         OF MARYLAND*

                                                               No. 17

                                                    September Term, 2022
                                           ______________________________________

                                                         JENNIFER ROWE

                                                                  v.

                                             MARYLAND COMMISSION ON CIVIL
                                                          RIGHTS
                                           ______________________________________

                                                        Fader, C.J.,
                                                        Watts,
                                                        Hotten,
                                                        Booth,
                                                        Biran,
                                                        Gould,
                                                        Eaves,

                                                             JJ.
                                           ______________________________________

                                            Dissenting Opinion by Fader, C.J., in which
                                                     Watts and Booth, JJ., join
                                           ______________________________________

                                                        Filed: March 29, 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.
       Although there is much I agree with in the well-written and thorough majority

opinion, I respectfully dissent. Pursuant to § 12-302 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings

Article (Repl. 2020; Supp. 2022), a right of appeal from a circuit court’s judgment on

judicial review of the decision of an administrative agency must be “expressly granted by

law.” The General Assembly has expressly granted a right of appeal from a circuit court’s

judgment on judicial review of a no probable cause finding by the Maryland Commission

on Civil Rights (the “Commission”) through the combined operation of §§ 20-1005(d)(2),

10-222, and 10-223 of the State Government Article (Repl. 2021). Although the General

Assembly admittedly could have carved a simpler path to establishing that right, as it has

done in some other instances, that does not render the grant of that right any less express

or any less valid.

       As the majority correctly observes, the requirement in § 12-302 that a right of appeal

in a judicial review proceeding be “expressly granted by law” is an exception to the general

right of appeal from final judgments of circuit courts contained in § 12-301 of the Courts

and Judicial Proceedings Article. Slip op. at 11. Thus, any right of appeal from a circuit

court’s judgment made in the exercise of judicial review must: (1) emanate from a source

of law other than § 12-301; and (2) be express, not implicit. Ms. Rowe contends that she

has a right of appeal that emanates not from § 12-301, but from the collective effect of

three provisions of the State Government Article. The critical question before us, therefore,
is whether those provisions establish a right of appeal and do so expressly.1 I believe they

do, in three straightforward steps.

       First, § 20-1005(d)(2) of the State Government Article provides, as relevant here,

that “a denial of a request for reconsideration of a finding of no probable cause by the

Commission is a final order appealable to the circuit court as provided in § 10-222 of this

article.” Section 20-1005(d)(2) thus (1) establishes a right to judicial review of a no

probable cause finding and (2) identifies § 10-222 as the statutory provision that governs

the exercise of that right.

       Second, § 10-222 establishes an entitlement to judicial review by “a party who is

aggrieved by the final decision in a contested case” under Maryland’s Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”) and provides rules governing such a proceeding. Those rules

require that such proceedings “be filed with the circuit court for the county where any party

resides or has a principal place of business” and address issues including, among other

things, permissible intervention, the submission of evidence, and the right to oral argument

and submission of written briefs. See id. § 10-222(c) – (g). Section 10-222(h) also

identifies how a circuit court may resolve a judicial review action, including the bases on

which the court may reverse or modify the decision under review.

       1
         Ms. Rowe and her amici curiae rely in part on policy arguments that they believe
favor permitting appellate review. However, as the majority correctly points out, the
question before is one of statutory interpretation. Slip op. at 9. And here, our decision is
further constrained by the requirement that any right of appeal be “expressly granted.” Cts.
& Jud. Proc. § 12-302. As a result, without any commentary on the value of the policy
arguments made by any party, they do not play a role in my analysis.
                                             2
       Third, § 10-223 provides that, with two exceptions identified below, “[a] party who

is aggrieved by a final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle may appeal to the

[Appellate Court of Maryland] in the manner that law provides for appeal of civil cases.”

       Thus, § 20-1005(d)(2) provides a right to judicial review “as provided in § 10-222”;

§ 10-222 provides rules governing such proceedings, including defining the types of

judgment a court may enter; and § 10-223 authorizes the filing of an appeal from “a final

judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle.” Because a final judgment rendered by a

circuit court under § 10-222 is rendered under the same subtitle in which § 10-223 appears,

that latter section provides an express grant of a right of appeal satisfying the requirement

in Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 12-302. The three statutory provisions on which this

analysis depends are clear and, at each step, express. No step in the analysis relies on

implication or requires resort to any source other than the plain language of the statutory

provisions.

       I have no quibble with the majority’s conclusion that § 20-1005(d)(2) does not by

itself expressly authorize an appeal from a circuit court’s judgment on judicial review of a

no probable cause finding. That is because, as the majority points out, the plain language

of § 20-1005(d)(2) does not expressly invoke appellate review. See slip op. at 16-17.

       For several reasons, however, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that

§ 10-223 does not authorize appellate review of a circuit court’s judgment on judicial

review of a no probable cause finding that is conducted “as provided in § 10-222 of this

article.” See Slip op. at 23-24.

                                             3
       First, § 10-223 does not limit the right of appeal only to final judgments in contested

cases,2 only to final judgments in proceedings initiated under the Administrative Procedure

Act, or only to proceedings that were conducted under § 10-222 pursuant to a statutory

provision that also specifically mentions § 10-223. Instead, § 10-223 applies broadly to

any “final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle.” A final judgment that is entered

in a judicial review proceeding conducted under § 10-222 is such a judgment.

       The majority states that a circuit court’s final judgment on judicial review of a no

probable cause finding is not, in fact, “a final judgment under § 10-222” that would render

it subject to the plain scope of § 10-223, but is instead “a final judgment issued under

§ 20-1005(d)(2).” Slip op. at 24. I disagree. Section 20-1005(d)(2) makes no provision

for entry of a judgment by a circuit court on judicial review. Instead, it makes the

Commission’s denial of a motion for reconsideration of a no probable cause finding “a final

order,” and provides that such an order is then “appealable to the circuit court as provided

in § 10-222 of this article.” It is § 10-222 that then governs the ensuing judicial review

proceeding, including the entry of judgment by the circuit court. Interpreting § 10-223 to

exclude judgments entered by circuit courts on judicial review of no probable cause

findings because the proceedings did not begin under that subtitle implicitly adds a

limitation that is not present in the statutory text, contrary to one of our fundamental canons

       2
         The majority states that “[t]he reference in § 20-1005(d)(2) to § 10-222 does not
transform an initial investigation and no-probable-cause finding into an APA contested
case as to which every provision of the entire APA – including SG § 10-223 – applies.”
Slip op. at 17. I agree. But, as explained above, § 10-223 does not limit the right of appeal
to contested cases.
                                              4
of statutory construction. See Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Thornton Mellon,

LLC, 478 Md. 396, 428-29 (2022) (“We neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an

intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, and we do not

construe a statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application.”

(quoting Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 275 (2010))).

       Second, although the General Assembly could have included in § 20-1005(d)(2) a

reference to § 10-223 or to the entirety of Subtitle 2 of Title 10 (or even to the entirety of

Title 10 or of the State Government Article), I am not aware of any authority requiring it

to do so. Nothing about the phrase “expressly granted by law” limits where the express

grant of authority must appear or suggests that, to be effective, such a grant must appear

within the statutory scheme in which the underlying proceeding arises. Here, the express

grant of authority is contained in § 10-223, which applies broadly to all circuit court

judgments entered under the subtitle in which it appears.

       Relatedly, that the General Assembly has, in other judicial review provisions,

included specific references to § 10-223 or general references to the entirety of Subtitle 2

of Title 10 is not dispositive. It is true that the use of different language in similar or related

provisions can inform our interpretation of statutory language and even be quite persuasive.

See, e.g., Lawrence v. State, 475 Md. 384, 406 (2021) (“It is a common rule of statutory

construction that, when a legislature uses different words, especially in the same section or

in a part of the statute that deals with the same subject, it usually intends different things.”

(quoting Toler v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 373 Md. 214, 223 (2003))). However, it is also

                                                5
possible to “make too much of too little” based on such linguistic arguments. See Nat’l

Fed’n of Fed. Emps., Loc. 1309 v. Dep’t of Interior, 526 U.S. 86, 93-94 (1999).

       Here, the only provision that the Commission cites as an example from the same

title of the State Government Article is located in § 20-1030, which authorizes judicial

review from decisions of the Commission concerning discriminatory housing practices.

See State Gov’t § 20-1030(a) (authorizing “judicial review . . . in accordance with the

provisions for judicial review under Title 10, Subtitle 2 of this article”). Notably, however,

that provision was enacted 11 years after § 20-1005(d)(2), see 1982 Md. Laws, ch. 129

(containing § 20-1005(d)(2)); 1991 Md. Laws, ch. 571 (containing § 20-1030(a)), and the

Commission has not identified any reason for us to conclude that the adoption of the

language in § 20-1030(a) was intended to distinguish it from the language in

§ 20-1005(d)(2). Under the circumstances, although the difference in language is relevant

and admittedly weighs in favor of the Commission’s position, I do not think it overcomes

the plain, express language of § 10-223.

       The majority opinion impressively catalogues judicial review provisions elsewhere

in the Code that are similarly more specific in referencing § 10-223, the entirety of Subtitle

2, or the intermediate appellate court. Slip op. at 17-19 nn.4 & 6-7. Those provisions are,

of course, even further removed from § 20-1005(d)(2), and they also do not negate the

breadth or scope of the express language of § 10-223.

       By contrast, § 5-310(e) of the State Personnel and Pensions Article, which is part of

the Maryland Whistleblower Law, contains similar language to § 20-1005(d)(2) and also

has given rise to appeals without any apparent question as to whether they were authorized.

                                              6
Section 5-310(e) provides that “[a] complainant or appointing authority may appeal the

decision [of the Office of Administrative Hearings on the whistleblower claim] . . . in

accordance with § 10-222 of the State Government Article.” Notwithstanding the absence

of any express invocation of § 10-223 in that provision, it has given rise to several appellate

decisions, including at least four that have reached this Court. See Donlon v. Montgomery

County Pub. Sch., 460 Md. 62 (2018); Lawson v. Bowie State Univ., 421 Md. 245 (2011);

Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. Heller, 391 Md. 148 (2006); Montgomery v. Eastern Corr. Inst., 377

Md. 615 (2003); McReady v. Univ. Sys. Md., 203 Md. App. 225 (2012). The Court’s

decision today may have implications for whether future whistleblower disputes can reach

the appellate courts.

       Third, the breadth of the express grant of coverage in § 10-223 is no reason to

disregard it. Section 10-223 contains two subsections. Subsection (a) provides that the

section “does not apply” to two specific types of cases: (1) those arising under Title 16 of

the Transportation Article, unless otherwise provided; and (2) judgments on actions of the

Inmate Grievance Office. Subsection (b) then expressly grants a right of appeal from “a

final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle.” The structure of this provision is thus

broadly inclusive of all final judgments issued under the subtitle other than those that are

specifically excluded. Where the scope of the express grant is broad, and especially where

the General Assembly has carved out exclusions, we should presume that the General

Assembly “meant what it said and said what it meant.” Peterson v. State, 467 Md. 713,

730 (2020) (quoting Bellard v. State, 452 Md. 467, 481 (2017)).

                                              7
       Fourth, notably, § 10-222 is written with a scope that is expressly limited to

contested cases, but § 10-223 is not. Section 10-222(a)(1) authorizes judicial review only

from a “final decision in a contested case,” and then the remainder of the provision

establishes rules governing such proceedings. By its own terms, then, § 10-222 applies

only to contested cases. It is only as a result of the specific invocation of § 10-222 in

§ 20-1005(d)(2) that the former applies here.

       By contrast, § 10-223 contains no comparable, internal limitation to contested cases.

Instead, § 10-223 applies by its plain language to any “final judgment of a circuit court

under this subtitle.” State Gov’t § 10-223(b). There was thus no need for § 20-1005(d)(2)

to specifically invoke § 10-223 to make it applicable to a final judgment rendered by a

circuit court pursuant to § 10-222.

       In sum, a straightforward application of §§ 20-1005(d)(2), 10-222, and 10-223,

demonstrates that the General Assembly has expressly granted a right of appeal from the

final judgment of a circuit court exercising judicial review of a no probable cause finding

issued by the Commission. I would therefore reverse the decision of the Appellate Court

of Maryland and remand for further proceedings.

       As a final note, although my conclusion is based on the foregoing exercise of

statutory construction, the history of the adoption of what is now § 20-1005(d)(2) and its

application over the last nearly four decades strongly supports that construction. As the

majority points out, slip op. at 25-26, that provision was enacted in response to the first

                                             8
iteration of the Vavasori case, in which the Baltimore City Court3 and the Appellate Court

concluded that there was no right of judicial review from a no probable cause finding of

the Commission. See Vavasori v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., No. 209, slip op. at 1 (Md. Ct. Spec.

App. Dec. 27, 1982). In response, the General Assembly enacted Article 49B, § 10(d), the

predecessor to § 20-1005(d), for the purpose of making such findings “appealable to the

circuit courts under the judicial review provisions of the State’s [Administrative] Procedure

Act.” Revised Fiscal Note, Bill File, S.B. 419, at 1 (Md. Laws 1982).

       Ms. Rowe asserts that the General Assembly’s legislative purpose in making no

probable cause findings subject to judicial review supports her contention that the General

Assembly must also have intended to authorize appellate review of such decisions. Like

the majority, see slip op. at 21-22, 27-28, I disagree. The General Assembly could have

authorized a judicial review procedure containing a single layer of circuit court review, and

doing so would not have been in any way inconsistent with a purpose of providing judicial

review. Of course, providing an avenue for appellate review of a circuit court’s decision

is also not in any way inconsistent with that purpose. However, what is most telling about

the legislative intent behind § 20-1005(d)(2), and of the contemporaneous understanding

of that intent, is what happened next.

       After the enactment of the predecessor to § 20-1005(d)(2), the Appellate Court

concluded that the statute applied retroactively to Mr. Vavasori’s case and remanded the

case to the circuit court, which exercised its newly conferred jurisdiction to affirm the

       3
       As discussed in the majority opinion, see slip op. at 24 n.10, the Baltimore City
Court was a predecessor to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
                                             9
Commission’s no probable cause determination. See Vavasori v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., No.

209, slip op. at 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 27, 1982). Mr. Vavasori appealed. See Vavasori

v. Comm’n on Hum. Rels., 65 Md. App. 237 (1985). Without discussing its jurisdiction,

the intermediate appellate court addressed the merits of Mr. Vavasori’s contentions and

affirmed. See id. at 251, 252 (“[W]e find evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion

that there was no probable cause to believe that [Mr. Vavasori] was the victim of

discrimination.”).

       To be sure, it appears that the question now before us was not raised in Vavasori’s

second trip to the intermediate appellate court, and silence on an unraised issue ordinarily

is not indicative of any view on the issue. Here, however, the court’s silence is noteworthy

for three reasons. First, unlike other issues, an appellate court “is obligated to address sua

sponte the issue of whether [it] can exercise jurisdiction.” Stachowski v. State, 416 Md.

276, 285 (2010). Second, jurisdiction had been at the center of the Vavasori case in its first

trip to the Appellate Court, making it unlikely that the court would have neglected to

consider the issue when the case returned to it. Third, the statutory change was very recent,

had been targeted to respond to the court’s decision in that same case, and applied only to

judicial review of certain decisions of the Commission, which was a party to the appeal. It

thus seems likely that the Commission and its counsel were well-informed about the

legislative intent and would have raised absence of jurisdiction on appeal if there had been

any question about it. Although I agree with the majority that “court rulings generally do

not shed light on legislative intent,” slip op. at 28 (emphasis added), the close relationship

                                             10
between the Vavasori case and the particular legislative change at issue make it an

exception.

       Moreover, in addition to the Commission’s notable silence, the General Assembly

also remained silent in the face of the Appellate Court’s reported decision in Vavasori so

soon after the Legislature’s adoption of the predecessor to § 20-1005(d)(2) in response to

that very case. The General Assembly is presumed to be aware of reported appellate

decisions interpreting statutes. See Bellard, 452 Md. at 494 (“The General Assembly is

presumed to be aware of this Court’s interpretations of statutes.”).           Yet neither

contemporaneous with the second Vavasori decision nor in the almost four subsequent

decades of apparently uninterrupted practice consistent with that decision has the General

Assembly repudiated it. That legislative “inaction supports a conclusion that the General

Assembly has acquiesced” to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in these cases. See

Wadsworth v. Sharma, 479 Md. 606, 622 (2022); see also Howling v. State, 478 Md. 472,

504 (2022) (finding that in not amending the statute at issue “over the course of several

decades, the General Assembly has acquiesced in Maryland appellate courts’

interpretation”).

       Justices Watts and Booth have authorized me to state that they join in this opinion.

                                            11