ANNAPOLIS, Md. — There's been great debate whether students accused of certain crimes should be allowed to attend public school in person with their fellow classmates.
Several Republican State lawmakers say permitting their attendance pose safety risks to other children.
This legislative session 13 Maryland Delegates sponsored House Bill 137, called the School Safety Act of 2025.
The bill proposes banning a child from in-person attendance at a public school, if they're charged with a crime of violence.
While the majority of GOP members have become increasingly critical of Maryland's lax juvenile justice laws which at times enable younger offenders to skirt accountability, schools are where some lawmakers are drawing the line.
As it stands now, Maryland law requires juvenile court records to remain confidential, meaning school staff and parents often times are unaware of a student's criminal history.
House Bill 137 would change that, banning a child from school property, for merely being charged with a crime.
According to the bill's language, the ban would last until if or when the charge is dropped or the child is acquitted.
There is no telling how long such a process could take, as pace of litigation often varies on a case-to-case basis.
Under the bill a student charged would receive alternative education options such as remote or online learning as their case plays out.
Delegate Nino Mangione introduced separate legislation (House Bill 0068 - Student Protection Act of 2025), that goes a step further.
His bill would automatically trigger a suspension, just for being accused of a violent crime, before charges are ever filed.
Mangione sought the opinion of the Maryland Attorney General's Office to help determine whether either bill would be constitutional.
While the Attorney General's Office said they couldn't flat out deem the bills unconstitutional, they raised concerns over potential due process violations.
"It is my view a court would determine that some amount of due process is required before a student can be prohibited from in-person attendance at a public school," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jeremy McCoy in a response letter to Mangione. "It is also possible that removal from in-person attendance based solely on a “suspected” crime of violence or a mere “charge” of such a violation may not be sufficient bases for the deprivation of the child’s right from a due process perspective."
The Attorney General's Office gave similar legal advice to State Senator Johnny Ray Salling during last year's General Assembly, when he introduced Senate Bill 1145, aiming to prohibit Child Sex Offenders from attending in-person classes.
Although Salling's bill passed the Senate last session, it eventually stalled in the House.
Both bills this year appear destined for the same fate.