Bill to loosen Methodist trust clause divides committee: church leaders warn of constitutional risk, proponents cite historical harms

A sharply contested hearing on SB 172 produced two clearly opposed narratives about church property law. Proponents, including Senator Anthony Muse and clergy who once served local congregations, argued that the statutory trust provision long embedded in Maryland code effectively transferred local property to the denomination and disproportionately harmed small and predominantly Black churches. "They lost everything," said a proponent recounting church histories and legacies of local ownership.

Opponents from the Baltimore Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church and other denominational leaders warned that SB 172 would cross constitutional lines by legislatively undoing denominational governance and private trust arrangements. Tom Starnes, chancellor of the conference, and others cited an opinion from the Maryland Attorney General (03/26/2025) that warned the proposal could raise First Amendment free‑exercise and contract‑clause problems. "This bill seeks to give the state a right to disaffiliate that the denomination does not grant," the conference's counsel said.

Committee members probed retroactivity, potential disparate treatment of denominations and the practical consequences of changing long‑standing title rules. Several senators asked both sides for documentation about conference contributions to local properties and expressed interest in resolving disputes without infringing on religious governance. No vote was taken; members asked for additional material from both the conference and proponents to clarify legal exposure and fiscal impacts before further action.