Court Opinion

ID: 9733508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:09:29.890498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:42.114701
License: Public Domain

McAULIFFE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I do not agree with the majority that the interests affected by this legislation are not of sufficient importance “as to trigger any enhanced scrutiny.” Majority opinion at 361 (emphasis added). In this case particularly, where we are called upon to conduct an equal protection analysis pursuant to the provisions of the Maryland Constitution, I would utilize the flexible “continuum” or “full-spectrum” approach1 rather than a rigid two-tier or three-tier approach. See Hargrove v. Board of Trustees, 310 Md. 406, 427-30, 529 A.2d 1372 (1987) (McAuliffe, J., dissenting).
Employing that approach and subjecting the statute to a level of scrutiny consistent with the significance of the benefit curtailed, I nevertheless conclude that the General Assembly’s judgment of societal need rests upon a sufficiently firm basis to justify the limitation of benefits involved and the inequality that will sometimes inevitably result.

. The more flexible approach "allows for varying levels of scrutiny depending upon ‘the constitutional and societal importance of the interest adversely affected and the recognized invidiousness of the basis upon which the particular classification is drawn.’ ’’ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 231, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.E.2d 786 (1982) (Marshall, J., concurring), quoting from San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 99, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting).