Overview

• A unanimous three-judge panel led by Judge Julius Richardson ruled that Maryland’s prohibition on advertisers disclosing or itemizing the tax is a content-based restriction that fails intermediate First Amendment scrutiny
• The opinion invoked the Colonial-era Stamp Act analogy to underscore that criticizing taxation remains a fundamental form of protected political speech
• The appeals court reversed U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby’s 2024 decision and remanded the pass-through clause for the lower court to fashion an appropriate remedy
• Maryland’s 2021 law, designed to raise about $250 million annually for K–12 education under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, levies graduated rates from 2.5% to 10% on global digital ad revenue and is also being contested in Maryland Tax Court
• Trade groups including NetChoice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CCIA—representing Big Tech firms like Meta, Google, Apple and Amazon—argued the ban was meant to shield lawmakers from voter criticism