Senate sponsors push broader state limits on federal access to Maryland data

Senator Clarence Lam and other sponsors presented the Maryland Data Privacy Act (Senate Bill 977), a push to extend and broaden existing state limits on federal and third-party access to sensitive state-held data.

What the bill would do

Senator Lam described the bill as an extension of the 2021 Driver Privacy Act: it would require state or federal judicial warrants for federal agents to access certain Maryland state databases (including driverlicense and law-enforcement data), expand reporting obligations to the Attorney General and General Assembly when requests occur, and add limits and reporting requirements on data brokers that repackage public records and other information.

Why sponsors framed it as necessary

Sponsors and committee supporters said the bill is intended to protect Marylanderspersonal information from warrantless or administratively authorized federal searches, and to make access transparent. Senator Lam raised national concerns about more aggressive federal enforcement and described the bill as a way for Maryland to assert control over how its data is used.

Questions and constitutional concerns

Committee members and staff raised several implementation and constitutional questions. A Judiciary staff memo cited possible First Amendment concerns about content-based restrictions on "personal information" and flagged the risk the Attorney Generals office had identified. Committee members asked how the bill would affect standard public tools (for example, accessible voter files and judicial case search) and university obligations (for example, I-9 or visa-related reporting for sponsored students).

Senator Lam responded that the bill seeks to protect state-held data and that he is open to drafting clarifications. He said the bill as amended removes some items and inserts a new data-broker prohibition drafted by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. He also said the bill would not stop routine statutory disclosures required of entities such as universities but that he was open to tailored carve-outs.

Next steps

Committee staff asked the sponsor to consult with the Attorney Generals Office and affected agencies to address constitutional concerns that were raised in an AG letter and to resolve questions about how the bill would interact with established public search tools and statutory reporting duties. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.