The segments below provide a brief overview of MACo’s work in the area of government liability and courts in the 2025 General Assembly session.
County governments enforce laws, employ county residents, and maintain facilities throughout Maryland. Therefore county governments may be subject to acting as defendants in court, litigating cases involving employment benefits, injuries sustained on county properties, and various other subjects. MACo advocates on behalf of county governments to clarify the unique role that they serve as employers and public institutions, ensuring the balance of public interests that account for the burden placed upon taxpayers by excessive litigation.
Maryland’s 447th legislative session convened amidst a substantial concern over the State’s fiscal situation, with weakened revenues and cost increases for many services at every level of government. Despite the fiscal limitations, a wide range of policy issues received a full debate, with many resolutions arising from the 90-day annual process. MACo’s legislative committee guided the association’s positions on hundreds of bills, yielding many productive compromises and gains spanning counties’ uniquely wide portfolio.
Follow these links for more coverage on our Conduit Street blog and Legislative Database.
MACo opposed HB 818 – Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses – Violation of Maryland Constitutional Right. The bill would have established a path toward granting attorney’s fees in any case brought in the state circuit courts claiming a violation of a Maryland constitutional right. The bill as introduced, also did not include any of the existing settlement provisions or narrowing distinctions that appropriately acknowledges that government liability is balanced with taxpayer interests in mind. As such the bill represents the potential for more claims to be brought but with disproportionate award standards for clients and attorneys. For instance, a plaintiff could receive a $10,000 judgement and the attorney’s fees could dwarf that, running into the multiple thousands depending on the case. This creates a climate where trial attorneys are enriched at the taxpayer’s expense, regardless of the existing and sufficient avenues for plaintiff relief. In practice, the bill would have likely led to an increase in litigation and insurance costs for State and local governments. This bill did not pass.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 456 – Civil Actions – Child Nonsexual Abuse and Neglect – Damages and Statute of Limitations with amendments. In brief, this bill attempted to address some of the grievous harms visited upon the victims of child abuse and neglect. In practice, it would have extended the statute of limitations on matters involving allegations of nonsexual abuse of a child. Counties support the intent of allowing victims to hold responsible parties accountable but requested clarity regarding good faith actions taken by staff to protect children and maintain programming goals. If children or staff are in danger, county employees need to be encouraged to take appropriate action for the safety and security of all parties. Under the bill’s definitions, certain necessary protocols and procedures could be unintentionally captured by the language in the bill. This could have the effect of creating even more liability due to ambiguity. This bill did not pass.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 594 – Civil Actions – Motor Vehicle Accidents Involving Vulnerable Individuals – Comparative Negligence. This bill would have created a new comparative fault standard in Maryland and upend the state’s well-established and carefully balanced contributory negligence standard, without any corresponding adjustments to other components of Maryland’s longstanding balanced approach to tort claims. Current statute recognizes the need to balance liability with taxpayer interests and does so by including two legal standards that still allow a plaintiff to recover damages from multiple parties and bring a suit even if they are found to harbor some fault. These standards in conjunction with contributory negligence represent a reasonable approach to recovering damages for those harmed and ensure governmental integrity. This bill did not pass but could have increased local government liability exposure and taxpayer burden.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
As amended, MACo took no position on HB 789 – Courtroom Security – Minimum Adequate Security and its cross-file, SB 621 – Courtroom Security – Minimum Adequate Security Standard with amendments. This bill initially required circuit courts and sheriff divisions to staff a specified number of security personnel per courtroom in every jurisdiction. Counties across the state fund the operations of these courts and would therefore be required to cover the cost of these increases. Additionally, there was no information available to give counties a sense of what that increase would actually be. While counties appreciate and agree with the need to secure judicial proceedings, they must be able to reasonably anticipate those new costs. With MACo’s help, the bill was amended and passed. It now requires certain reports from local jurisdictions to help the state understand where, and to what degree, the increases are needed to ensure safety and security.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported SB 311 – Government Officials’ Family Protection Act of 2025. This bill would have extended existing protections for certain local officials, to include their immediate family members. These safeguards would help reassure public servants that their own safety and that of their family members are taken seriously in the eyes of the law. While this bill did not pass, it does represent a response to the increase in threats and intimidations to local public safety, education, election, and health employees. Expansion of existing protections is welcome in the future and can improve recruitment and retention for public service employment.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 1507/SB 271 – Maryland Tort Claims Act – Employees of an Office of a Sheriff. This bill helpfully remedies confusion currently arising from claims brought against a civilian employee of a sheriff’s office. By clarifying the employment status of the non-sworn personnel in these divisions, all stakeholders (plaintiffs, defendants, and associated counsel) will have clearer directives on liability and representation. This helps avoid circumstance where counties are inadvertently shouldering the burden of the litigation and expedites representation for the employee who is entitled, in most cases, to a speedy defense. This bill passed.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 182/SB 118 – Motor Vehicles – Speed Monitoring Systems – Penalties with amendments. This bill increased the penalties that can be imposed for a violation recorded by a speed monitoring device, which will help promote safety and deter aggressive, reckless, and negligent driving. This is specific to areas with families, children, and thousands of county workers on and about the roadways in school zones. The language established a graduated fine that increases with the level of severity relative to the violation. While the new fees represent the severity of the offense, MACo was able to get an amendment included to give local law enforcement some discretion on the fees if and when there are mitigating circumstances, particularly for new drivers and indigent individuals. This way it does not disproportionately impact vulnerable communities and young people. The bill passed after language was added to establish a study of existing automated enforcement policies to potentially consider changes and enhancements with the public interest and safety at heart.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 343/SB 390 – Motor Vehicles – Speed Monitoring Systems – Statements and Certificates of Violations. This bill allows county law enforcement agencies to add, as they see fit, a trained technician to the pool of employees who are able to sign the statement alleging a violation as evidenced by a speed monitoring system. The bill was amended to clarify the components of necessary training to make sure employees with this responsibility fully understand the systems as well as the legal procedures that accompany a citation. This bill passed and is a valuable tool that can help local governments keep public safety officials in the community rather than behind a desk, particularly as historic shortages continue to be reported.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 591 – Statute of Limitations – Prosecution or Enforcement of Local Consumer Protection Codes. This bill would have established a timeline of three years for a local jurisdiction to file a claim against an entity in violation of a local consumer protection code, better protecting residents from predatory companies. Currently the statute of limitations allows for one year, which disqualifies many claimants that may have tried to resolve the problem on their own before seeking help from local authorities. This unnecessarily penalizes those individuals for taking good faith actions in resolving a problem before engaging local officials. While this bill would be a useful tool for local governments to protect residents and deter bad and predatory actors, it ultimately did not pass.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 487/SB 484 – Unhoused Individuals – Rights, Civil Action, and Affirmative Defense. This bill would have established certain rights for unhoused individuals as well as the grounds on which local intervention with these communities is permitted. The new rights as established in the bill had the potential to supersede necessary actions often taken by local officials to ensure the health and safety of unhoused and housed community members. In doing so, this bill would have preempted local authority, compromised service delivery for vulnerable individuals, and had the potential to expose local governments to significantly increased liability. Without these life-saving touchpoints for residents in need, the bill had the potential to exacerbate an already bad housing crisis. The bill did not pass.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 644/SB 530 – Vehicle Laws – Speed Monitoring Systems – Residential Districts. This bill would have authorized the statewide use of speed monitoring devices in residential districts under certain circumstances and only when enabled by a local ordinance. This legislation could promote safety and deter aggressive, reckless, and negligent driving, particularly in areas with families and children. This bill did not pass.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
