A case before the Maryland Supreme Court will weigh whether monetary sanctions are permissible in order to compel legal compliance by the Maryland Department of Health. The agency has been regularly found in contempt of court for lack of adherence to a state law that requires them to admit, within a certain time, individuals found not competent to stand trial.
In a case between plaintiffs represented by the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD) against the Maryland Department of Health (MDH), the Supreme Court of Maryland will weigh two questions concerning penalties against MDH for not abiding by state law. As recently covered on Conduit Street, and in earlier articles, judges across Maryland have been attempting to put more pressure on MDH to force them into compliance with the requirement that they admit individuals not competent to stand trial within 10 days of the court order. Due to what the department says is a lack of bed space in state hospitals, these individuals end up in detention centers for, sometimes, hundred of days, where they do not have access to appropriate care. Local detention centers have been in the position of housing and caring for these individuals within their own limited means while they wait for the state to transfer them, while the backlog is in the hundreds.
With the issue now carrying on for coming up on a decade, judges have been issuing judgements against MDH to pay sanctions associated with the prolonged detention in local facilities. Some estimates are nearing $2M in sanctions since the bill passed in 2018. Since then the wait list for admission has only grown longer despite the agency saying they are working to address the problem.
The case giving rise to the questions is Maryland Department of Health v. Jeffrey Boulden, et al, which consolidates a number of cases on the topic. These are not the only cases on the matter. Oral arguments are set to be heard on January 6, 2026 where the justices will hear from state funded attorneys representing both sides i.e. the Maryland Office of the Public Defender and the Assistant Attorney Generals representing MDH through the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.
The certified questions are:
- Did the Appellate Court of Maryland err in upholding monetary sanctions as “reasonably designed to compel compliance” with the Department’s obligation to admit criminal defendants within 10 business days of their being committed as incompetent and dangerous, where the Department’s failure to admit these defendants resulted from an extreme shortage of hospital beds that it is making extensive efforts to alleviate?
- Did the Appellate Court of Maryland err in upholding sanctions issued when the Department had already admitted the defendant, so that there was no compliance left for the trial court to compel?
