HB787 amends Maryland law governing the State Reporter’s publication of appellate opinions. The bill keeps the existing duties of the State Reporter and court clerks to prepare, deliver, proofread, correct, and publish reports of cases decided by the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Appellate Court of Maryland, but removes the specific requirement that the State Reporter secure copyright for the State of Maryland in those published reports.
The bill also preserves the requirement that opinions designated for publication be published within six months of the decision and leaves in place the budgeted clerical assistance for the Reporter. Its effective date is October 1, 2025. In practical terms, the measure updates the statute to eliminate a copyright-related obligation while maintaining the state’s publication process for appellate decisions.
Impact
HB787 makes a targeted amendment to Section 13-203 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. The principal legal change is the repeal of language directing the State Reporter to secure copyright for the State of Maryland in published appellate reports, which may affect how official opinions are treated as public records and published materials. The bill does not alter the Reporter’s core publication responsibilities, the role of appellate clerks, or the six-month publication deadline, and it does not create new duties or penalties for affected parties.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House 133-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests there was little public or legislative dispute over the measure’s purpose or effect.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive contention in the available materials. The only notable policy issue implicit in the bill is the removal of the State’s copyright claim over published appellate opinions, which could matter to court administration, legal publishers, and public access advocates. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such concerns were not significant enough to generate opposition.