Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc.
207 A.3d 695, 240 Md. App. 664 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local ordinance imposing stricter regulations than state law is not preempted where the state has not expressly forbidden local regulation, the ordinance does not conflict with an express state authorization, and the state legislature's repeated rejection of bills to preempt local authority indicates no intent to occupy the field.
Facts:
- In 2015, the Montgomery County Council enacted Bill No. 52-14, an ordinance restricting pesticide use.
- The ordinance prohibited the application of certain non-organic pesticides for cosmetic purposes on private lawns, playgrounds, and children's facilities.
- The ordinance contained numerous exceptions, permitting the use of any EPA-registered pesticide to control invasive species, disease vectors, stinging insects, and pest outbreaks threatening health or significant economic damage.
- The ordinance also mandated that retailers provide customers with specific notices and materials explaining the potential dangers of pesticide use.
- Maryland's state law, primarily in the Agriculture Article, establishes a regulatory framework for pesticide registration, labeling, and applicator certification, administered by the Maryland Department of Agriculture.
- Between 1992 and 1994, the Maryland General Assembly considered and rejected bills in three consecutive sessions that would have expressly preempted local governments from enacting stricter pesticide regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of residents, local businesses, and a trade association (Complete Lawn Care, Inc., et al.) sued Montgomery County in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a state trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the County's pesticide ordinance was preempted by state law and a permanent injunction to block its enforcement.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding the ordinance was preempted by conflict and implication, and permanently enjoined its enforcement on private property.
- Montgomery County, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court. Complete Lawn Care, Inc., et al. became the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Maryland's statutory scheme for pesticide regulation impliedly or by conflict preempt a Montgomery County ordinance that imposes stricter restrictions on the use of certain pesticides on private property?
Opinions:
Majority - Zarnoch, J.
No. The Montgomery County ordinance is not preempted by state law. A local law is not preempted where the state has not expressly prohibited it, the local law does not directly conflict with state law, and the state legislature has not demonstrated an intent to occupy the entire regulatory field. The court found no express preemption, as an old uncodified statute was likely intended to allocate duties among state officials, not bar local action. There is no conflict preemption because the state's regulations set a minimum safety floor, not a ceiling, and the County's ordinance merely imposes a more stringent standard without prohibiting what the state has expressly permitted. Most significantly, the ordinance is not impliedly preempted because the state scheme is not so comprehensive as to occupy the field, and the legislature's repeated rejection of preemptive bills from 1992-1994 provides strong evidence, under the Amendment Rejection Theory, that it did not intend to preclude local regulation. The state's interest in 'uniformity' is aspirational, not a mandate that overrides local home rule authority to protect public health and the environment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the home rule authority of Maryland counties to enact environmental and public health protections that are more stringent than state-level regulations. The court's strong reliance on the 'Amendment Rejection Theory' establishes a powerful precedent, suggesting that a legislature's repeated refusal to pass preemptive legislation is compelling evidence of its intent to allow for concurrent local authority. This ruling may encourage other local governments in Maryland to pursue similar ordinances on a range of environmental issues, knowing that state law will not be presumed to occupy a regulatory field in the absence of clear legislative language. The case clarifies that state regulatory schemes can be interpreted as a 'floor' for safety standards, leaving counties free to build upon them.
Unlock the full brief for Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc.