The parties disputed several provisions in the Maryland Constitution. In order to obtain a definitive interpretation, the Court certified two questions to the Maryland Court of Appeals: First, does the Maryland Constitution: (i) require a sitting judge to retire upon reaching seventy; (ii) prohibit the Governor from appointing a seventy year old to the bench; and (iii) prohibit a person seventy years of age or older from running for a judicial office? Second, does the Maryland Constitution permit individuals seventy years of age or older to run for a judicial office, and, if elected, to serve out their entire term?

According to Judge Bernstein, those judges who reach age seventy, while in office, must retire. However, individuals who run for office after reaching age seventy need not retire and they may serve their full fifteen year term. Judge Bernstein maintained that these classifications violate the equal protection clause. The State disagreed and read the State Constitution as requiring a sitting judge to retire upon reaching age seventy, prohibiting the Governor from appointing a seventy year old to the bench, and prohibiting a person age seventy or older from running for a judicial office. Therefore, according to the State, the Maryland Constitution treats all individuals age seventy and above equally. All parties involved, and the Court, agreed that there is no Maryland case interpreting the disputed provisions of the Maryland Constitution.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Judge Bernstein's Motion for Preliminary Injunction because the Court concluded that the State's interpretation that no Judge may sit as an active Judge after age seventy is likely to be ratified by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, Judge Bernstein had failed to show irreparable harm. If Judge Bernstein were to be required to leave office upon turning seventy, but, were to prevail subsequently, then he would be reinstated with full back pay and benefits; therefore, the Court found that he would be made whole financially.

The Court further recognized that when a provision of State law is subject to an equal protection challenge in Federal Court, and the provision, as here, does not involve a suspect classification, the State need only to assert a rational basis for its age classification. The rational basis may be any reasonable basis that the State articulates. In this case, the rational basis for the age classification was that it creates a built in safety check for judges who are reaching a time when the degradations of age are taking a physical and mental toll. Thus, the Court found the State's basis for having an age requirement for Judges to be rational. Accordingly, Judge Bernstein's Motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied and his case was stayed pending receipt of the Court of Appeals' answers to the two certified questions described above.