Court Opinion

ID: 9763981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:05:57.654781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:52.056643
License: Public Domain

Concubking Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Bell :
The amended Act of September 27, 1961 is difficult to interpret because parts of it are so indefinite and vague. The Act provides:
“No. 696
“An Act
“Amending the act of June 24, 1939 (P. L. 872), entitled ‘An act to consolidate, amend and revise the penal laws* of the Commonwealth,’ prohibiting certain business activities on Sunday.
“Section 1. The act of June 24, 1939 (P. L. 872), known as ‘The Penal Code,’ is amended by adding, after section 699.14 [699.13 in original], a new section to read:
“Section 699.15. Selling or Otherwise Dealing in Fresh Meats, Produce and Groceries on Sunday.—Whoever engages in the business of selling or otherwise dealing at retail in fresh meats, produce and groceries on Sunday shall, upon conviction thereof in a summary proceeding for the first offense, be sentenced to pay a fine of not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100), and for the second or any subsequent offense committed within one (1) year after conviction for the first offense, be sentenced to pay a fine of not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) or undergo imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days in default thereof.
*52“Each separate sale, or offer to sell, shall constitute a separate offense,
“Informations charging violations of this section shall be brought within seventy-two (72) hours after the commission of the alleged offense and not thereafter.
“This section shall not apply to any retail establishment employing less than ten persons or to any retail establishment where fresh meats, produce and groceries are offered or sold by the proprietor or members of his immediate family or employing less than ten persons nor shall it apply to any retail establishment where food is prepared on the premises for human consumption.”
I believe this amendment of The Penal Code, including the first, two exemptions, is Constitutional and (1) does not violate (a) the Equal Protection Clause or (b) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) does not constitute a law respecting the establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment (which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment) and (3) does not amount to invidious discrimination or unreasonable. classification.
An Act is presumed to be Constitutional, and may not be declared Unconstitutional unless it violates the Constitution clearly and plainly.* Rubin v. Bailey, 398 Pa. 271, 157 A. 2d 882; Allentown School District, 370 Pa; 161, 87 A. 2d 480; Evans v. West Norriton Township, 370 Pa. 150, 87 A. 2d 474.
Although the Act is poorly drawn, the objectives and purposes of this Act, viz., “selling or otherwise dealing at retail in fresh meats, produce and groceries on Sunday,” were, under prior decisions of this Court and prior decisions of the Supreme Court of *53the United States (which I am compelled to follow), (1) secular* in nature and (2) such classification is reasonable. That Court justifies its conclusions and decisions on the ground that the reason, purpose and objective of virtually every Sunday Closing Law** is to provide a uniform day of rest, recreation, peace and repose for all citizens, with certain permissible or necessary exceptions. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420; Two Guys v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582; Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599; Bargain City U.S.A., Inc. v. Dilworth, 407 Pa. 129, 179 A. 2d 439; Rubin v. Bailey, 398 Pa., supra.
We start with the well settled principle that the Legislature may validly and Constitutionally enact a law to prohibit all worldly business on Sunday, with the exception of necessities or acts of charity. Two Guys v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582, supra (pages 590 et seq.) ; Commonwealth ex rel. v. American Baseball Club of Phila., 290 Pa. 136, 138 A. 497, and cases cited therein; Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 34 Pa. 398; Johnston v. Commonwealth, 22 Pa. 102; Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa. 312; Commonwealth v. Bauder, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 424, 145 A. 2d 915, affirming 14 Pa. D. & C. 2d 571; Commonwealth v. Taber, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 415, 145 A. 2d 908, affirming 14 Pa. D. & C. 2d 591.
Moreover, because the penalties for violations are so severe and repetitive and would cause plaintiff ir*54reparable loss to Ms business and there is no adequate remedy for a person accused of or arrested for a violation of this Act except in Equity, Equity has jurisdiction. Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Blanc, 396 Pa. 448, 456, 153 A. 2d 243; Adams v. New Kensington, 357 Pa. 557, 560-561, 55 A. 2d 392; Duquesne Light Co. v. Upper St. Clair Township, 377 Pa. 323, 341, 105 A. 2d 287; Harris-Walsh, Inc. v. Dickson City Boro., 420 Pa. 259, 264, 216 A. 2d 329. See, also, Rubin v. Bailey, 398 Pa., supra; and Bargain City U.S.A., Inc. v. Dilworth, 407 Pa., supra.
In Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Blanc., 396 Pa., supra, the Court, quoting from Adams v. New Kensington, 357 Pa., supra, said (p. 456): “ ‘But
equity does have jurisdiction to enjoin such a [criminal] prosecution where it is alleged not only that the statute or ordinance is unconstitutional and void but that its enforcement would cause the plaintiff irreparable loss to his property, either by effecting, if not a total suppression of his business, at least a grave interference therewith, or by subjecting him to the imposition of cumulative, exorbitant and oppressive penalties pending judicial determination of the validity of the legislation. In such cases, the ground of equitable jurisdiction is the protection of property rights, and the fact that a criminal proceeding is involved is merely incidental [citing cases].’”
It is hornbook law that a legislature has the power to establish reasonable classifications, provided they have a reasonable basis and are not unjustly discriminatory. The test as to whether an Act is unconstitutional because it is unjustly discriminatory, or constitutes class legislation, or is an unconstitutional classification, is whether the classification is reasonable and is founded upon a real or genuine and not an artificial or arbitrary distinction. Chartiers v. Allegheny County Board, 418 Pa. 520, 539-540, 211 A. 2d *55487; Kurtz v. Pittsburgh, 346 Pa. 362, 31 A. 2d 257, and cases cited therein.
Although not mentioned in the Majority Opinion or in any of the Dissenting Opinions, this Sunday Closing Act is a criminal statute and therefore must be strictly construed against the Commonwealth. Statutory Construction Act, May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, §58(1) ; Commonwealth v. Derstine, 418 Pa. 186, 210 A. 2d 266; Commonwealth v. Glover, 397 Pa. 543, 156 A. 2d 114. So construed, I would limit the language of the Act and the interpretation of its exemptions (1) to retail establishments which throughout the week, as well as on Sunday, employ less than ten persons, and (2) to family operated small retail stores, and I would include in the “immediate family” husband, wife, children, grandparents, brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces, and (3) to retail establishments where food consisting of meats, produce and groceries are prepared on the premises for human consumption.
I believe the words “retail establishments” in the third exemption were intended to exempt small stores which sell at retail fresh meats, produce and groceries, such as delicatessen and grocery stores, but were not intended to exempt restaurants. However, this particular exemption clause is so vague and indefinite and uncertain that this third exemption cannot be Constitutionally sustained. With this exception, I would sustain the Constitutionality of the Act.

 Italics throughout, ours.

 Frequently expressed “clearly, palpably and plainly.'

 These decisions admit that the origin of the Act was undoubtedly religious and I personally believe that its principal purpose and objective is still primarily and principally religious. This is crystal clear from the original §699.4 of The Penal Code of 1939, which provides (P. L. 952) : “Worldly Employment or Business on Sunday. —Whoever does or performs any worldly employment or business whatsoever on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday (works of necessity and charity only excepted) . . .”.

 Sometimes called “Sunday Blue Laws”.