M.a.i.d. v. State

Summary

The Court held that the challenges to the MLUPA's public-participation provisions presented a justiciable controversy, including because the challenged provisions could recur after a temporary statutory amendment expires. It reversed the ruling that the MLUPA facially violated the constitutional right to participate, concluding that the statute provides constitutionally sufficient participation during comprehensive planning, for newly identified impacts, and through de novo appeals. It affirmed rejection of the equal-protection claims because the alleged classes were not similarly situated and vacated the restrictive-covenant declaration as an advisory opinion.