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 believe such scenarios pose safety risks to other children.
Recently 13 Maryland GOP Delegates sponsored House Bill 137, the School Safety Act of 2025.
The bill proposes banning a child from attending a public school in-person if they're charged with a crime of violence.
While Republican lawmakers have become increasingly critical of Maryland's lax juvenile justice system, often enabling young offenders to skirt accountability, school safety is where some are drawing the line.
As it stands now, Maryland law requires juvenile court records to remain confidential, meaning school staff and parents are usually left unaware of a student's criminal history.
House Bill 137 would change that by 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 that process could take, as pace of litigation varies on a case-to-case basis.
Under the bill a student charged would learn online or remotely while 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 determine the bill's constitutionality.
Although the Attorney General's Office 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 provided similar legal advice to State Senator Johnny Ray Salling during last year's legislative session, when Senate Bill 1145 was introduced prohibiting Child Sex Offenders from attending in-person classes.
Salling's bill passed the Senate but stalled in the House.
Both bills this year appear destined for the same fate.