Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Federal Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate Moon’s bill would let Maryland classify some federal judgments as delinquent; lawmakers raise constitutional concerns
Summary
Delegate Moon proposed HB 706 to authorize the Board of Public Works to declare federally owed funds delinquent and refer them for state collection tools (including liens on federal property). Supporters called it an enabling enforcement tool when federal agencies ignore court orders; members and counsel warned it invites constitutional litigation under the Supremacy Clause.
Delegate Moon told the Appropriations Committee he introduced HB 706 in response to instances where federal agencies failed to comply with court orders directing release of funds to Maryland localities. "When the feds are trying to sell the FDA headquarters... why don't we put a lien up on that building?" the sponsor asked, describing the bill as an "enabling" set of state steps that would direct state actors (BPW and Central Collections Unit) to pursue remedies available under state law.
The bill would permit the Board of Public Works to meet, take a public vote, and declare a final‑judgment debt delinquent when federal monies due under a final court order are not released. The sponsor framed the proposal as a calibrated, state‑controlled enforcement pathway that could include liens on federal property or withholding state collections that would otherwise flow to the federal government. He acknowledged the approach could trigger complex constitutional litigation but said that risk is part of the policy choice when federal actors ignore court judgments.
Committee members and counsel pressed the sponsor on legal mechanics and consequences. One lawmaker asked whether post‑judgment interest was contemplated; committee counsel observed that federal law limits post‑judgment interest against the United States unless authorized by statute or contract. Others asked whether the proposal could chill federal investment in the state; the sponsor responded that the aim is to preserve the state’s land and to compel compliance, not to drive federal agencies away.
Speakers noted specific funds at issue in past litigation (NEVI electric vehicle charging funds; FEMA disaster funds for local flood and causeway repairs) and cited examples of localities that faced delayed reimbursements following litigation. The sponsor said the bill is intentionally high‑level and enabling; implementation details would be worked out administratively and litigated if necessary.
Several committee members characterized the bill as "creative" and acknowledged the frustration that motivated it; legal counsel repeatedly warned that the state will likely face constitutional challenges if it employs state collection tools against federal property or funds. The committee did not adopt the bill at the hearing; delegates signaled interest in additional legal analysis and possible narrowing amendments.
Next steps: the bill will be considered for amendment and legal review; the committee requested additional briefing on federal statutes implicated and the potential scope of post‑judgment remedies.
