By MDBayNews Staff
Maryland lawmakers have introduced a sweeping new proposal dubbed the “No Kings Act,” legislation that would allow Maryland residents to sue federal officials in state court for alleged violations of constitutional rights.
Sponsored in the Senate by Jeff Waldstreicher and cross-filed in the House with Lorig Charkoudian, the bills—SB 346 and HB 332—are framed as a civil-rights safeguard. Supporters argue the measure restores accountability at a time when federal courts have narrowed remedies against federal actors.
But critics warn the proposal risks undermining constitutional structure, blurring federal-state boundaries, and turning Maryland courts into battlegrounds for national political disputes.
What the No Kings Act Would Do
The legislation would create a state-level cause of action allowing individuals to sue anyone acting “under color of law” for alleged violations of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Unlike existing federal remedies, the bill is designed to operate in Maryland state courts, potentially bypassing federal doctrines such as qualified immunity and recent Supreme Court limits on lawsuits against federal officials.
In effect, Maryland would be asserting its own enforcement mechanism over federal actors operating within the state.
A Direct Challenge to Federal Supremacy
At the heart of the controversy is federalism. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law—and federal authority exercised lawfully—generally preempts state interference. For decades, disputes over federal misconduct have been handled primarily in federal courts.
By inviting state courts to adjudicate claims against federal officials, the No Kings Act raises serious constitutional questions:
- Can a state impose civil liability regimes on federal actors?
- Can state courts override federal immunities established by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court?
- What happens when fifty states adopt fifty different standards for federal enforcement?
Legal scholars on the center and right warn this approach risks fragmenting national governance and creating legal chaos for federal law enforcement, regulators, and agencies.
Political Context Matters
The timing of the bill is not accidental. The No Kings Act arrives amid heated rhetoric about “authoritarianism,” federal law enforcement, and executive power—particularly following clashes between Democratic officials and federal immigration enforcement.
Supporters insist the bill is neutral and principled. Skeptics argue it is politically motivated resistance, dressed up as civil-rights reform, aimed at constraining federal enforcement policies Maryland leaders oppose.
If enacted, the law could invite a surge of politically driven lawsuits targeting federal agencies—from immigration to environmental enforcement—regardless of whether those actions were lawful under federal statutes.
Accountability vs. Overreach
No serious observer disputes that government officials should be accountable when they violate constitutional rights. But accountability mechanisms already exist—through federal courts, congressional oversight, inspectors general, and civil-rights statutes passed by Congress.
The question raised by the No Kings Act is not whether power should be checked, but who gets to do the checking.
Allowing states to unilaterally redefine the legal exposure of federal officials risks setting a precedent that cuts both ways. A future conservative-led state could just as easily weaponize similar laws against federal civil-rights enforcement or regulatory agencies.
Why This Matters for Maryland
The debate over the No Kings Act isn’t just philosophical—it has direct consequences for how Maryland governs, spends money, and interacts with the federal government.
1. Maryland Courts Could Become National Battlegrounds
If enacted, the law would invite lawsuits against federal officials into Maryland state courts. That risks turning local courts into venues for national political disputes, further straining an already overburdened judiciary and diverting resources from Maryland-specific cases.
2. Taxpayers Could Foot the Bill
Even if lawsuits target federal actors, Maryland taxpayers would likely absorb the costs of expanded court dockets, judicial administration, and potential state-federal litigation. There is no fiscal note yet explaining how much this new legal exposure could cost the state.
3. Federal-State Tensions Could Escalate
Maryland relies heavily on federal funding—for transportation, education, health care, defense installations, and infrastructure. Legislation that openly challenges federal authority risks complicating those relationships at a time when cooperation is critical.
4. A Precedent That Cuts Both Ways
If Maryland can create state remedies against federal officials, conservative states could do the same—targeting federal civil-rights enforcement, environmental regulators, or education mandates. What feels like accountability today could become retaliation tomorrow.
5. It Shifts Power Away from Voters
Rather than resolving disputes through elections or Congress, the No Kings Act pushes major policy fights into courtrooms. That shift favors litigation and legal maneuvering over democratic accountability.
Bottom line:
This bill may be sold as a civil-rights safeguard, but its real impact would be structural—reshaping Maryland’s courts, finances, and role in the federal system in ways voters rarely get a direct say over.
What Comes Next
If the No Kings Act advances, it is almost certain to face immediate constitutional challenges. Courts will be asked to determine whether Maryland is protecting civil liberties—or attempting an end-run around federal authority it disagrees with.
For a state already struggling with budget pressures, court backlogs, and public trust in institutions, the question remains: is this legislation about justice—or about politics?
MDBayNews will continue tracking SB 346 and HB 332 as they move through the General Assembly.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.