Criminal Law - Theft - Mail and Packages (Porch Piracy Act of 2026)
HB0787 amends Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings law governing the State Reporter’s publication of appellate opinions. The bill requires the State Reporter, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Maryland, to continue preparing reports of cases decided by the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Appellate Court of Maryland that are designated for publication, and it preserves the existing requirement that opinions be published within six months of decision. It also updates terminology to reflect current court names and clerical references.
The principal substantive change is the repeal of the requirement that the State Reporter secure copyright for the State of Maryland in the published reports of opinions. Under the bill, the Reporter still supervises proofreading, correction, and publication, but the explicit state copyright language is removed. The act takes effect October 1, 2025, and applies to the state’s official publication process for appellate decisions.
The bill narrows Maryland law by deleting a specific statutory directive that the State Reporter obtain copyright on published appellate reports as state property. It leaves intact the State Reporter’s core duties to prepare, proofread, correct, and publish designated opinions of the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Appellate Court of Maryland, as well as the six-month publication deadline. The practical effect is on the state’s management of official court opinions and the legal status of those publications, rather than on substantive rights of litigants or court procedures.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other debate indicating strong opposition or support. Based on the bill text and its enactment, the measure appears to have been a technical or housekeeping change to court publication law rather than a controversial policy shift. The absence of recorded contention suggests general acceptance or at least no notable public dispute in the materials provided.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only potentially debatable issue is the removal of the state copyright requirement, which could raise questions about public access, ownership, and reuse of official court opinions. However, there is no evidence in the record of organized opposition, amendments, or competing views from legislators, the courts, or stakeholders.