Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Maryland debate centers on 'No Kings Act' to let residents sue federal officers for constitutional violations
Loading...
Summary
Supporters said HB 332 would fill a gap left by federal case law and let Marylanders sue officers who violate constitutional rights; congressional law professors and civil‑rights lawyers warned about immunity doctrines, removal, and technical drafting that could limit the law's effectiveness.
Delegate Lorig Charcuttian introduced HB 332, the "No Kings Act," saying the bill would create a state pathway for Marylanders to seek damages when officers acting under color of law violate constitutional rights.
"If any official violates your constitutional rights, you deserve a remedy," David Weinberg, a policy strategist, told the committee in support, framing the bill as closing a gap left by federal case law that limits suits against federal officers.
Legal experts and civil-rights advocates testified about the technical and constitutional hurdles the proposal faces. Professor (Jeffrey) Amar (testimony by Professor Amar) and others highlighted three legal risks: intergovernmental-immunity challenges if a state law treats federal officers differently; the Westfall Act (a federal statute) potentially triggering substitution of the United States and removal of claims to federal court; and the narrowing of Bivens remedies by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has made directly suing federal officers far harder.
Civil-rights practitioners urged the committee to remove the bill's explicit reference to "qualified immunity" and instead preserve "any defenses otherwise applicable at the time the action accrues" so that future federal or judicial changes to qualified immunity would not be frozen into state law.
Committee members asked whether the bill would change liability for state officers (who are already subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983) and whether suits would be removed to federal court; experts replied that removal is likely but that a state-law cause of action can still be meaningful if carefully drafted and defended in litigation.
The sponsor and advocates said they will work with legal experts on amended language to address intergovernmental immunity and Westfall concerns while preserving meaningful remedies for constitutional violations.
