Senate debates bill letting Methodist congregations disaffiliate while keeping property amid constitutional concerns

Senate Bill 172, introduced by Senator Angela Muse, would repeal portions of state law that historically treated Methodist local church property as held in trust for the United Methodist Church and would permit a local congregation to disaffiliate and retain its property after reimbursing documented indebtedness to the parent denomination.

Supporters framed the bill as a corrective for small congregations that, they said, have been saddled by national church rules that impose large exit costs. Sponsor Senator Muse said the measure is intended to protect historically rooted local congregations and prevent what she described as “holding people hostage” by onerous financial requirements. “Local churches paid for these buildings,” she told colleagues on the floor, arguing the statute should no longer block congregations that vote to leave.

Opponents raised legal and practical objections, centering on a March 4, 2024 Attorney General opinion cited in floor debate that concluded a retroactive statutory requirement overriding existing trust clauses, deeds or denominational discipline would likely be unconstitutional. A senator who questioned the bill repeatedly quoted that opinion and noted ongoing litigation in Anne Arundel County in which a trial court granted summary judgment for the parent church; that appeal was argued in January and remains pending.

Floor exchange reflected competing framings rather than factual dispute: supporters emphasized equity for small, often fiscally limited congregations and said the bill merely requires repayment of documented indebtedness, not a giveaway of assets; critics warned the bill could conflict with property rights and religious‑association governance recognized by courts. Sponsor Muse acknowledged the likelihood of court challenges but urged passage and said, “let the courts deal with it.”

The debate included repeated references to the facts assembled for the legislative record and to the Attorney General’s written opinion; senators also discussed examples from other states and varying trial‑court outcomes around the country. Several members asked whether the bill applied retroactively to congregations that previously disaffiliated and were the sponsor confirmed it would reach existing situations.

The procedural outcome in the transcript is the adoption of the committee’s favorable report and the bill was ordered printed for third reading; the record shows no final vote on passage in this session. Next steps are a future floor vote or further amendment; the transcript captures the constitutional concerns and active appellate litigation that are likely to shape post‑enactment litigation if the measure were to pass.