Higher Education - Foster Care Recipients and Homeless Youth - Tuition Exemption and Associated Benefits
HB 818 would create a new statutory remedy allowing courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to a prevailing plaintiff who brings a claim against the State, a political subdivision, or a state or local employee/agent to remedy a violation of a right secured by the Maryland Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The bill also allows a prevailing defendant to recover fees and expenses, but only if the plaintiff’s constitutional claim was maintained in bad faith or without substantial justification.
The bill directs courts to decide fee awards using the factors in Maryland Rule 2-703(f)(3), and it makes clear that the new fee-shifting provisions apply notwithstanding other law. It also amends the State Government Article so that existing limits on counsel fees under the Maryland Tort Claims Act do not apply to awards made under this new subtitle, while preserving the current percentage caps for other claims not covered by the new provision. The bill is prospective only and would apply to cases filed on or after its October 1, 2025 effective date.
HB 818 would add a new subtitle to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article authorizing fee-shifting in constitutional-rights litigation against state and local government actors. It would expand potential remedies for plaintiffs asserting Maryland constitutional or Declaration of Rights violations, while also creating a limited fee-recovery path for defendants in frivolous or bad-faith cases. The bill would also carve these awards out from certain Maryland Tort Claims Act attorney-fee limits, affecting how counsel fees are calculated in covered cases and potentially increasing litigation exposure for government defendants.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no vote tally or transcript discussion is provided. Based on the text, the bill appears designed to strengthen enforcement of Maryland constitutional rights by making it more feasible for plaintiffs to bring claims, while still preserving a safeguard for defendants against meritless suits. Overall, the measure reads as plaintiff-protective and rights-enforcement oriented, with a balancing provision for bad-faith litigation.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s expansion of fee awards against the State and local governments, which could increase public liability and encourage more constitutional litigation. Supporters would likely emphasize access to justice and the need to make constitutional-rights claims economically viable, especially where damages may be modest but rights violations are significant. Opponents may focus on fiscal exposure, the possibility of increased lawsuits, and the departure from existing attorney-fee limits under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. The bill’s defendant-fee provision may be intended to address concerns about frivolous claims, but it is limited to cases brought in bad faith or without substantial justification.