The House gave overwhelming approval Thursday to the No Kings Act, which would let Marylanders sue federal agents who violate their constitutional rights, despite heated opposition from House Republicans.
The 95-35 vote in support of Senate Bill 346 follows a year of high-profile confrontations between Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and citizens that culminated in the shooting deaths of U.S. citizens Alex Pretti and Renée Good by federal agents in Minneapolis. Republicans said the bill is an emotional response to those events that ends up going too far.
“I’ll certainly have more to say about violating rights,” House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy (R-Frederick) said. “Maybe we can identify who the kings really are.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery), took inspiration from a federal law that lets individuals sue state or local government officials for constitutional rights violations committed “under the color of law,” and uses similar language.
But House Republicans said it is bills passed in response to immigration raids, like Waldstreicher’s, that will end up violating Marylanders’ constitutional rights.
Pippy asked Del. Elizabeth Embry (D-Baltimore City), who was managing the bill on the House floor, if this bill would allow Marylanders to bring a lawsuit if their favorite handgun were to be banned, a reference to House Bill 577, a bill that would prohibit the sale or manufacture of firearms that can be converted into automatic weapons. The House passed that bill Wednesday.
Embry confirmed that owning a firearm is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment, but said SB 346 would not apply since Maryland lawmakers are not federal officers.
Del. Matt Morgan (R-Calvert and St. Mary’s) pressed the argument, asking Embry to confirm that showing preferential treatment based on skin color goes against the Constitution, then asking if the House could be “possibly violating the Constitution with some of the DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] policies that come out of this chamber?”
Embry said that while Attorney General Anthony Brown did not offer an opinion on the constitutionality of the bill, he did support the bill.
House Minority Leader Jason Buckel (R-Allegany) said during floor debate that the No Kings Act is just another bill Democrats are pushing out to show that they don’t support the Trump administration.
“Let’s just be honest, what this bill is, it’s another one of the 10, 20, 30, 50, 5,635 bills this year that is intended to vent the spleen at ICE,” Buckel said. “That’s all it is, that’s all it’s here for.”
But Embry argued that the No Kings Act actually ensures that federal officials are held to the same standards as state officials, by creating a law that is identical to the laws that apply to state officials.
“This bill is, really, it’s doing the opposite of what you just described,” Embry said in response to Buckel. “It is the state empowering its residents and attorney general to protect the U.S. Constitution, just as [U.S. Code section] 1983 enforces that against state and local officers.”
Pippy said that any officer who breaks the law should be held accountable, and that he does not want to what happened in Minneapolis being repeated in Maryland. But the No Kings Act is not the answer, he said.
“I think this bill is, as the minority leader said, one of many bills this year to kind of say something, about maybe they don’t like what they see, so they’re putting in a bill to say that,” Pippy said.
Del. Samuel “Sandy “Rosenberg (D-Baltimore City) said there’s a reason this bill and many similar bills have been introduced this session.
“Respected constitutional scholars fear the consequences of our constitutional rights of actions that are being taken by this federal government,” Rosenberg said. “It’s not out of some political reason or personal pique that these suits are being brought, that these bills are being before us today.”
— This story was updated on Friday, April 10, to correct Del. Elizabeth Embry’s role in the debate.
