An effort to nearly halve Baltimore’s property taxes suffered another setback Friday night when a Baltimore District Court judge ruled that the measure violates state law and should not appear on the November ballot.

The decision on the Renew Baltimore ballot proposal comes as a temporary relief to officials at City Hall, as the proposal has stoked fears about worsening city finances. Baltimore’s top politicians have condemned the proposal, with Mayor Brandon Scott even predicting that the proposal would bankrupt the city.

Friday’s ruling by District Court Judge Althea M. Handy upholds an opinion issued a month ago by Baltimore’s top elections official that found the measure violated Maryland law and should not be put to voters in November.

In a statement, supporters of the voting law said they would appeal the decision to the Maryland Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case quickly so that ballots can be printed before the general election.

“Renew Baltimore is disappointed but not surprised by today’s decision by the Baltimore Circuit Court to disregard the will of over 23,000 Baltimore City residents who are demanding real change to Baltimore City’s unfair and exorbitant property tax,” said Ben Frederick, a member of the ballot bill’s advisory committee. “We remain confident that the tens of thousands of Baltimore citizens who support capping Baltimore City’s property tax at a responsible, fair and reasonable level will ultimately prevail.”

If implemented, Renew Baltimore’s proposal would gradually reduce the highest property tax rate in Baltimore, Maryland, over seven years, from 2.248% to a maximum allowable level of 1.2%. Economists and former elected officials who support Renew Baltimore argue their proposal would help reverse decades of population decline in Baltimore, attract new investment and reduce crime — which would boost the economy and offset lost revenue for the city.

On Thursday, the two sides clashed in Handy’s courtroom over the merits of such a drastic change in property taxes.

At the heart of the litigation is whether Renew illegally sets local property tax rates by ballot — a power Maryland’s constitution reserves to elected officials. In court filings and at Thursday’s hearing, the two sides disagreed over the impact of a 1990 Maryland Supreme Court decision on the issue. The city and election officials argue that Renew’s mandated local property tax cuts effectively determine the tax rate. Attorneys for the ballot proposal argued in court filings that their proposal would not set the tax rate, only cap it — in theory, the city could cut taxes below mandated annual maximums.

At Thursday’s hearing, Handy pressed Renew’s lawyers on the grounds that their proposal would not result in a forced “cut” in Baltimore’s property taxes and thus lower revenues.

“It’s a basic economic principle that revenues go up when prices go down,” responded Renew attorney Constantine J. Themelis, who argued that the effort is aimed at reversing Baltimore’s economic fortunes, not emptying its coffers. “It sets a reasonable limit.”

City lawyers, meanwhile, told Handy that the Renew charter amendment would strip elected officials of their right to set the tax rate by law. A memo filed with the court cites the same 1990 ruling, which the city says rejected even “less drastic” attempts to manipulate the tax rate by voting.

At the same time, such a drastic cut in property taxes would jeopardize Baltimore’s ability to meet its legal obligations to provide basic services to citizens, Hilary Ruley, an attorney in the city’s legal department, told Handy.

Not only would services like education suffer, but the city would also be unable to meet other obligations, such as pension and retirement costs for its employees, Ruley said. A report from Scott’s Department of Finance predicted that Renew’s measure would result in an annual structural deficit of nearly $900 million within a decade. To make up for those losses would mean compensating for half a century of population decline in just seven years.

If Renew Baltimore’s proposal were successful, it would make it “impossible” for Baltimore to balance its budget, Ruley argued. “These drastic cuts would cripple city government.”

After Baltimore politicians missed the opportunity to introduce a competing bill that might have killed Renew, opponents are now hoping the courts will keep the bill off the ballot. If Renew is reinstated, it would have a good chance of becoming law in November: Baltimore voters have historically tended to approve ballot bills almost automatically. Only one bill has been defeated in the past 25 years.