No. 20-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. LAWRENCE HOGAN, in his capacity of Governor of Maryland, Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— CARY J. HANSEL MARK W. PENNAK HANSEL LAW, P.C. Counsel of Record 2514 North Charles Street MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC. Baltimore, MD 21218 9613 Harford Road (301) 461-1040 Ste. C #1015
[email protected] Baltimore, MD 21234 (301) 873-3671 mpennak@ marylandshallissue.org Counsel for Petitioners December 21, 2020 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case is about whether the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause of the Maryland Constitution protect lawfully acquired and lawfully owned personal prop- erty that the State legislature subsequently decided to ban totally. In Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S.Ct. 2419, 2427-28 (2015), this Court held that “direct appropria- tions of real and personal property” are treated “alike.” Yet, in a published ruling broadly applicable to all types of personal property, the Fourth Circuit has ruled that this holding in Horne applies to personal property only if the regulation in question requires the owner to “turn over” the property to the government or a third party. The Fourth Circuit also construed the Maryland Con- stitution in such a way as to effectively eliminate any protection for lawfully purchased personal property.