11
rule was not unconstitutional per se, the court considered the appropriate standard for
measuring the Food Trucks’ Article 24 claims. The court applied “heightened rational
basis” scrutiny and found that the rule was not unconstitutional under that standard:
Applying the heightened rational standard of review to the 300
foot rule this Court concludes that this provision is not
unconstitutional because it (1) protects the contributions brick-
and-mortar retail establishments make to the City’s
commercial districts; (2) promotes entrepreneurial investments
and opportunity by eliminating the potential risks of food
trucks; and (3) diversifies the marketplace to maximize
positive economic effect by creating meaningful choices for
the consumer. The 300-foot rule promotes brick-and-mortar
establishments throughout the City by eliminating the threat of
mobile vendors, and ensuring brick-and-mortar establishments
become a permanent fixture in the City. Promoting brick-and-
mortar restaurants provides jobs, property tax revenues, and
prevents a growing number of vacant properties. The
commercial district of this City is dependent on these brick-
and-mortar establishments’ long-term real estate investments.
The City’s economic vitality is dependent upon the
flourishment of its commercial district.
As stated in [Attorney General v.] Waldron, [289 Md. 683
(1981)], a State may enact regulations that may be burdensome
on an individual’s right to engage in their choice of occupation,
as long as that regulation is required for the protection of the
public health, safety, and morals. This Court agrees that the
vitality of commercial districts is dependent upon the success
of brick-and-mortar establishments, which promotes a
successful economy. The 300-foot rule serves the legitimate
purpose of promoting the City’s general welfare by
establishing a 300-foot distance between brick-and-mortar
establishments and mobile vendors. The City is entitled to
protect the general welfare by ensuring the vibrancy of
commercial districts.
Thus, this Court declares that Baltimore City Code, Article 15,
Section 17, et seq., is constitutional and does not infringe on
the [Food Trucks’] Due Process and Equal Protection rights.
Although there was some uncertainty about whether the Food Trucks had