SmartEnergy Holdings, LLC v. Frederick Hoover

── SmartEnergy Holdings, LLC v. Frederick Hoover ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-1936 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 10 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1936 SMARTENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a SmartEnergy, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. FREDERICK H. HOOVER, in his official capacity as Chief of the Maryland Public Service Commission; KUMAR P. BARVE, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Maryland Public Service Commission; BONNIE A. SUCHMAN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Maryland Public Service Commission; MICHAEL T. RICHARD, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Maryland Public Service Commission, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Adam B. Abelson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02336) Argued: May 5, 2026 Decided: May 28, 2026 Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Heytens and Senior Judge Floyd joined. ARGUED: Stephen M. Ruckman, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Colin Patrick Glynn, MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Douglas F. Gansler, CADWALADER, USCA4 Appeal: 25-1936 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 10 WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Miles H. Mitchell, General Counsel, MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1936 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 10 RUSHING, Circuit Judge: The Maryland Public Service Commission imposed a civil penalty and a refund order on SmartEnergy Holdings, LLC, an electricity supplier, for violating various consumer protection laws. SmartEnergy sued the commissioners in federal court, alleging that the Commission denied SmartEnergy a jury trial in violation of the Maryland Constitution and imposed an excessive fine in violation of the United States and Maryland Constitutions. The district court dismissed the complaint, and we affirm. I. SmartEnergy is an electricity supplier that sells “100% renewable energy” by purchasing “renewable energy credits” to “offset” a customer’s electricity usage. In re Smart Energy Holdings, LLC, 311 A.3d 919, 932 & n.11 (Md. 2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In Maryland, customers are entitled to purchase electricity from a retail supplier like SmartEnergy or to pay their regional electricity distributor for “standard offer service.” Id. at 927. Suppliers like SmartEnergy are regulated by the Maryland Public Service Commission, which has authority to enforce the State’s public utility and consumer protection laws. Md. Code, Pub. Util. § 7-507(k)(3)(viii). In March 2021, the Commission entered an order finding that SmartEnergy’s marketing and sales practices violated the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act (MTSA), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Electric Customer Choice and Competition Act, and the Commission’s regulations. Among other things, the Commission found that SmartEnergy’s contracts with its Maryland customers were invalid for failur