WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Governor

Ch. 563

(III) PERIODICALLY RENEW A SUSPENSION FOR A
PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 24 MONTHS.

(2) IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO MODIFY, REMOVE, OR
RENEW A SUSPENSION, THE COMMISSION SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME
REQUIREMENTS FOR ORIGINALLY IMPOSING A SUSPENSION UNDER
SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION.

(D) JUDICIAL REVIEW.

ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A SUSPENSION MAY TAKE AN APPEAL TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ANY COUNTY.

SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENT: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from former Art. 56, §
230C(a) through (e).

In subsection (a) of this section the following former
grounds for imposing a suspension on advertising are
deleted because they are not substantial governmental
interests, which are required as a basis to restrict
commercial speech, and, therefore, a suspension based
on any of these grounds would be an unconstitutional
restriction on commercial speech: (1) that "the ...
economic stability of a neighborhood is threatened by
the volume of real estate transactions"; (2) that "an
abnormal real estate market with depressed values is
developing in a neighborhood because of excessive
sales offerings"; and (3) that "certain methods of
advertising or solicitation could be damaging to the
public or to the dignity and integrity of the real
estate profession, or could be in violation of Article
56 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, or the
regulations or code of ethics of the Real Estate
Commission of Maryland". See Greater Baltimore Board
of Realtors v. Hughes, 596 F. Supp. 906 (D. Md. 1984);
65 Op. Att'y. Gen. 58 (1980).

In subsection (b)(1) of this section, new language is
added to state expressly that which was only implied
in the former law — i.e., that in order to impose a
suspension, the Commission shall determine that the
suspension would advance a state interest, that there
is a reasonable basis to believe that panic selling,
blockbusting, or depressed real estate market values
would occur without the suspension, and that there is
no less restrictive alternative available. The former
law expressly required the Commission to meet these
standards only when determining whether to modify,
remove, or renew a suspension. Case law makes it
clear, however, that for a suspension to be
constitutional the Commission would also have to meet
these standards when originally imposing a suspension.

- 3877 -