Civil Actions - Violation of Constitutional Rights (No Kings Act)
HB0550 would create a new state civil cause of action against federal law enforcement officers who, acting under color of law, deprive a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution. The bill defines “federal law enforcement officer” broadly to include officers who can make arrests for federal offenses and carry firearms in the performance of their duties, and it places this new remedy in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article as a new subtitle on deprivation of constitutional rights.
The bill allows an aggrieved party to sue for constitutional violations and permits defendants to raise absolute or qualified immunity defenses to the same extent as in a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also preserves sovereign immunity defenses, authorizes courts to award reasonable fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs, and sets a five-year statute of limitations. The measure is written to apply retroactively to causes of action arising on or after March 1, 2025, and to pending civil actions when it takes effect, and it is styled as an emergency bill taking effect immediately upon enactment.
If enacted, HB0550 would add a new Maryland statutory remedy for alleged constitutional violations by federal law enforcement officers, expanding potential civil liability beyond existing federal civil rights litigation. It would affect the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article by creating Subtitle 27, establishing who may sue, what defenses are available, the fee-shifting rules, and the filing deadline. The retroactivity provision would also affect certain already-accrued or pending claims, potentially altering the legal landscape for ongoing disputes involving federal officers in Maryland.
The available record shows little formal legislative debate or recorded voting on the bill, and the measure was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the bill’s framing, it appears intended as a strong civil-rights enforcement measure, but the absence of committee testimony or votes makes it difficult to identify broad legislative support or opposition from the record provided. The emergency and retroactive features suggest the sponsor viewed the issue as urgent.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s creation of a state cause of action against federal law enforcement officers, its retroactive application, and its interaction with immunity doctrines. Supporters would likely focus on accountability and remedies for constitutional violations, while opponents could object that the bill intrudes into federal law-enforcement activity, exposes officers to expanded litigation, and may create conflicts with sovereign, absolute, and qualified immunity protections. The retroactivity clause and emergency status are also likely to be disputed because they can affect pending cases and accelerate implementation.