Criminal Law – Homicide by Motor Vehicle or Vessel – Restitution to Child (Bentley’s Law)
Summary
HB1394 creates a new subtitle in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article aimed at nonprofit organizations that knowingly provide what the bill defines as “unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity.” The bill defines that term broadly to include aiding or abetting certain conduct by the government of Israel or Israeli citizens in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, where the conduct is described by reference to Geneva Convention prohibitions and includes unlawful transfer of civilians, violence against protected persons, property destruction, annexation, forced transfer or eviction, and destruction of infrastructure.
Under the bill, a nonprofit organization registered to solicit charitable donations in Maryland may not knowingly engage in that conduct. The Attorney General may sue for injunctive relief and damages on behalf of the state or its political subdivisions, and the bill requires damages sought in such an action to be at least $1,000,000. A private person harmed by a violation may also sue for injunctive relief and actual damages, with possible attorney’s fees. If a judgment is entered, the Secretary of State must remove the nonprofit from the Registry of Charitable Solicitation. The bill applies a 10-year limitations period and takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1394 would add a new cause of action and regulatory penalty framework affecting Maryland-registered 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations that solicit charitable donations in the state. It would authorize state and private enforcement, expose nonprofit officers and agents to litigation, and create a mandatory removal mechanism from the charitable solicitation registry following a judgment. The bill would not directly amend criminal statutes, but it would significantly affect nonprofit compliance, charitable registration, and civil liability related to activities connected to Israeli settlement activity in occupied territory.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears highly controversial and politically charged, with the subject matter centered on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and allegations of support for conduct in occupied territory. No committee transcript or vote record is provided here, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s evident advocacy-oriented framing and the likelihood of strong disagreement over its scope and purpose.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad definition of prohibited “support,” its application to nonprofits based on conduct tied to foreign policy and international law, and the use of state civil enforcement against charitable organizations. Opponents would likely argue that the bill is overbroad, vague, and potentially implicates constitutional concerns involving free speech, association, and preemption or foreign affairs. Supporters would likely view it as a human-rights and accountability measure aimed at preventing Maryland charities from facilitating settlement-related abuses. The mandatory minimum damages request and registry removal provision also appear likely to be disputed.