Civil Actions - Violation of Constitutional Rights (No Kings Act)
HB0332 creates a new civil cause of action in Maryland for an aggrieved person whose constitutional rights are deprived by an individual acting “under color of law.” The bill defines “law” broadly to include the U.S. Constitution, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the Maryland Constitution, and federal and state statutes, but the operative cause of action is tied specifically to deprivation of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. A plaintiff could seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, with special limits on injunctive relief against judicial officers.
The bill also allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover reasonable fees and costs, including attorney’s fees and expert witness fees, while preserving absolute and qualified immunity defenses and not waiving sovereign immunity. It imposes a three-year statute of limitations and applies to civil actions pending on the effective date. The act would take effect October 1, 2026, and would be codified as a new subtitle in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
HB0332 would add a Maryland statutory remedy parallel in some respects to federal civil-rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but limited by the bill’s express immunity provisions and its focus on constitutional deprivations by persons acting under color of law. It would affect potential defendants such as government officials and other individuals acting with governmental authority, while also creating a new avenue for plaintiffs to pursue damages and equitable relief in state court. The bill would amend the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article by adding Subtitle 27, “Action for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights.”
Based on the available record, there is little direct evidence of committee debate or recorded votes because the hearing was canceled and no vote history is provided. The bill’s introduction and assignment to the Judiciary Committee suggest it was treated as a civil-rights and governmental-liability measure, but the absence of discussion means no clear consensus or opposition is documented in the materials provided.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of liability for government actors, the interaction with absolute and qualified immunity, and whether the bill meaningfully expands remedies beyond existing federal civil-rights law. Judicial officers receive special protection from injunctive relief and fee awards unless they act clearly outside jurisdiction, which suggests concern about judicial independence. Sovereign immunity is expressly preserved, which may limit the bill’s reach and could be a point of debate for supporters seeking broader accountability and opponents concerned about litigation exposure.