The case arose from a scheme by George LeMay, who used door-to-door salesmen on military bases to sell educational materials to servicemembers through his company Western Education Corp. After the three plaintiff couples refused to pay for the allegedly overpriced materials, LeMay obtained state court judgments and then had them domesticated in Maryland courts through the state's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. LeMay then secured writs of garnishment that froze the plaintiffs' bank accounts, all without Maryland courts requiring affidavits about whether the defendants were servicemembers or appointing counsel for them as required by federal law.
Writing for the majority, Judge Richardson held that the plaintiffs could not establish the traceability required for Article III standing. 'Plaintiffs' theory essentially posits that the clerks would not have violated federal law if the Maryland Rules included the same procedural protections as the Relief Act,' Richardson wrote. 'But Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the clerks would have acted differently if a redundant state rule such as this existed.' The court distinguished Bennett v. Spear, noting that while the Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinion in that case had a 'powerful coercive effect,' here the justices' inaction neither authorized nor determined the clerks' violations of already-binding federal law.
The district court had initially dismissed claims against then-Governor Larry Hogan but allowed damage claims against the Maryland Supreme Court justices to proceed, finding that while domesticating foreign judgments didn't implicate the Relief Act, issuing writs of garnishment did violate the statute's requirements. However, after plaintiffs settled with LeMay and sought to amend their complaint to add more defendants including current Governor Wes Moore, the court ultimately granted summary judgment for all defendants, citing legislative immunity.
In dissent, Judge Gregory argued the majority's ruling 'strips Congress's statutory framework of influence and, as a result, deprives servicemembers of the opportunity to obtain a statutorily authorized remedy.' Gregory emphasized that Maryland's rules 'have the force of law' and argued it was predictable that court employees would comply with explicit guidance from the state's highest court. The case highlights ongoing challenges servicemembers face in enforcing federal protections designed to shield them from civil proceedings while on active duty.